Sitting of 6 June 1989

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

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on the Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances and on Gifts) (Sweden) Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

  SUMMER TIME
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL
  ISLE OF WIGHT BILL
  TEES (NEWPORT BRIDGE) BILL [Lords]
  TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
  Orders for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 8 June.
  NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 8 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Links with Business and Industry
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources are made available to local education authorities to ensure that secondary schools are able to develop effective links with businesses.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage awareness of industry in schools.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): Resources are made available for the development of links between schools and business through a number of initiatives involving schools, local education authorities and national organisations. The Department makes direct contributions to particular projects and organisations, publishes and distributes information, and makes funding available to local education authorities for the training of teachers. Industrial and economic awareness are cross-curricular themes in the national curriculum.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the excellent schemes, some of which are undoubtedly very good, there is a patchiness about the implementation of links between schools and industry so that we are in danger of producing more industrial illiterates than necessary? Against that background, and on the assumption that he agrees with what 1 say, will my hon. Friend find time to review the implementation of the

    3
    scheme to see whether there are ways to improve and to even out its performance throughout the United Kingdom in view of the need to attract the best brains into industry?
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend, with his great experience in these matters, makes a serious point. We wish to see best practice become common practice, and my hon. Friend's erstwhile colleagues in the Confederation of British Industry are considering how to bring co-ordination to bear on a range of links between education and industry. However, we do not wish to dampen local enthusiasm and dynamism, which appear to be the key to success in these efforts. I am satisfied that there is much enthusiasm, but in the light of the Cadbury report, I appeal to employers to come forward in greater numbers. The schools are ready for the links and wish to see much more contact. Employers should match their enthusiasm.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my hon. Friend comment on the development of the technical and vocational education initiative? My constituency of Gravesham has a programme which does a considerable amount to develop the awareness of school students of the opportunities to be found in industry. Surely we should give added emphasis to that area.
    Mr. Butcher: When the initiative was first discussed there was some cynicism, which I believe has now all but evaporated. I am delighted that TVEI is being pursued with such enthusiasm, particularly by teachers. It has been a great success. In particular, it seems to "turn on" certain categories of pupil who may find the traditional curriculum less exciting than they would wish. A spend of some £900 million over 10 years shows the kind of cash support that we are prepared to give to this significant breakthrough.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister agree that there is a great deal more to education than links with business? Education is for life, and must be broad and tolerant. There is a grave danger—[Interruption.] The laughter from Conservative Members suggests that they do not agree with what I am saying, but it is very important. The links with life must be broad, tolerant and educational, not reduced to the distinctly narrow viewpoint of the Conservative party, which is causing such chaos in our education system.
    Mr. Butcher: There is no conflict between our traditional desire for the education of the whole man—or the whole person—and the need to establish links with the world of commerce and industry. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that someone who leaves our school system without the basic capability of standing on his or her own feet is not a whole person. Our main priority must be to give people that first capability.

    Teachers (Recruitment)
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress his Department is making in promoting teaching as a career.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Our approach, through national publicity and the work of the teaching as a career unit, is creating a positive recruitment climate. This is reflected in the record numbers in recent years applying for
    4
    teacher training places, and in the very high response to our recent advertising campaign, to which there were more than 10,000 responses.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my hon. Friend confirm that teaching is an extremely important, valuable and good career, but, that while the Government are taking positive steps to encourage people to adopt it others tend to emphasise only the negative aspects? Should they not take note of the words of Walter levers, the incoming president of the National Association of Head Teachers, who said recently that negative attitudes were themselves demoralising?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I agree. The incoming president of the association was right in saying that negative attitudes do not help the general image of teachers. Conservative Members have a high regard for the teaching profession. We consider it an honourable profession that is executed extraordinarily well by the vast majority of teachers. I am surprised that teachers do not recognise how easily they could regain their authority by showing how competently they are managing the changes in our education system.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that in every school, day visits by pupils and particularly longer adventure residential journeys in this country are a valuable means of irrigating learning? Does she accept my view, based on 14 years' experience, that such activities are especially valuable in the case of reluctant pupils, and will she and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State review the mess-up that they have made and change the rules so that willing teachers can pursue those activities to the benefit of their pupils and of education? More teachers will then stay in our schools, and more will be attracted to teaching—the reverse of the result that the current terrible arrangements are producing.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I ask the hon. Gentleman to study carefully the recommendations in the Education Reform Act 1988 on charging for extra-mural activities. Those recommendations allow for all such activities to continue, and indeed follow exactly the changes recommended to the Department—which was not originally minded to make any changes—by local education authorities.
    Mr. Kirkhope: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are some difficulties in achieving a balance between teachers wishing to go into one specialty or another? Can she say a word or two about how that imbalance will be remedied?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken considerable steps towards ensuring that people are attracted to areas of shortage by means of bursaries, so that they will enter teaching and take it up as a career. That has been very successful. The most recent bursaries offered to those wishing to teach chemistry has resulted in an 8 per cent. increase in the number wishing to enter the profession.
    Mr. Straw: The evidence of the recent Gallup poll in the Daily Telegraph shows a 40 per cent. drop in support for the Conservative party among teachers since the last general election and that four in 10 of our most experienced teachers wish to leave the profession. Does not that confirm the verdict of the Daily Express
    "that the tolerance of parents—and of voters—"
    on the Government's education record

    5
    "is almost exhausted"?
    Why do the Minister and the Secretary of State continue to deny that there is still a serious crisis in respect of our teaching force?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The polls to which the hon. Gentleman refers reflect the attitudes of the people who are invited to respond to them. Teachers' actions are reflected by the independent interim advisory committee's report, which reaffirms that the number of people leaving the teaching profession in 1989 is only 1 per cent. of the total.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult for my right hon. and hon. Friends to take a lecture on teacher recruitment when it was the last Labour Government who, between 1974 and 1979, devalued teachers' pay by as much as 12 per cent.?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the present Government, teachers' pay has increased in the order of 40 per cent.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of his White Paper on student loans.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans for top-up loans for students.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): We are continuing to hold constructive discussions with a range of financial institutions about their possible participation in the administration of top-up loans. My right hon. Friend will announce our conclusions in due course.
    Mr. Field: As the Government have been collecting information in America, can the Minister tell the House the average size of debt of American students at the end of their courses and the dropout rate, and how both compare with the British scene?
    Mr. Jackson: It is not possible to make a comparison with the British scene because we do not yet have student loans, but if the hon. Gentleman studies the White Paper he will find that the figures of comparative indebtedness at the end of the course of study for the different countries which have student loans—as just about every other country does—show that total borrowing by students when our system is fully operational will be considerably less then is already the case in many other countries.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome the fact that there are 266 more students in higher education than there were 10 years ago? [Interruption.] Does he agree that they are better provided for in terms of grants than any other students in the world? Will he take note of the advice of Polonius to his son:
    "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be"?
    What would my hon. Friend's answer have been if Polonius had given him that advice.
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend, in his usual modest way, underestimates the Government's contribution to the expansion of higher education. The number of students has increased by 260,000 since we came to office. I will address the serious question put by my hon. Friend the
    6
    Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) about indebtedness in two ways— practically and philosophically. The practical answer is that credit is a fact of life. We know—there is evidence of this in the White Paper—that the use of credit spreads across all classes. We also have evidence from our survey of student income and expenditure of the substantial borrowing that students already incur. The philosophical answer is that is is important for everyone to regard higher education as a form of investment by society on behalf of the economy and of culture. That is the taxpayers' contribution. It is also investment by an individual in his own future. It affords substantial personal benefit, so there should be a reasonable personal contribution to its costs.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister admit that he has already failed in the objective set out in the White Paper of finding a cost-effective scheme that the financial institutions will administer? On his own estimate of an initial cost of £120 million, and the scheme not being self-balancing until the end of the century, and given all the reports that the Government will have to find more than £500 million to subsidise the banks, is it not already clear that the loans scheme will cost the country and the Government a fortune?
    Mr. Jackson: I admire the hon. Gentleman's keen speculative intelligence. I refer him to the words of the penultimate Liberal Prime Minister, "Wait and see.".
    Mr. Haselhurst: Has my hon. Friend considered the particular problems of deaf students and the danger that they will get a lower standard of employment than they deserve and may therefore run into corresponding difficulties in paying off loans which might be higher as a result of their special needs?
    Mr. Jackson: I should point out to my hon. Friend a feature of the loans scheme which has been much neglected by commentators upon it. The obligation to repay the loan will be related to income. That should be more than enough to take care of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Now that I have obtained and today placed in the House of Commons Library the responses that the Government refused to publish in relation to the loans White Paper, will the Minister come clean and admit what his written answer to me on 15 February kept hidden—that those responses are overwhelmingly in opposition to the Government's proposals? Bearing in mind the reports which the Minister has on his desk and which show that it would cost £530 million even to induce the banks to consider operating his scheme, will not even he now concede that these unworkable and profoundly damaging proposals should be dropped, or does he intend to go on being more economical with the truth than he proposes to be with taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Jackson: I have here the Labour party's summary of the responses. One third of those responses agreed with the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) in supporting a graduate tax.

    Grant-maintained Status
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many inquiries and how many applications have so far been received from schools considering grant-maintained status.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): To date, I have approved 15 schools for grant-maintained status. A further 32 schools are currently embarked on the application procedures. Many more schools have expressed an interest.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his extremely helpful reply, but may I ask whether he is satisfied that we are doing enough to turn those inquiries into grant-maintained schools? Will he take the opportunity to comment on an education policy document issued by the Labour party, which calls for the abolition of grant-maintained schools? Does he agree that such documents should be speedily kebabed?
    Mr. Baker: We now have certain proposals from the Labour party which purport to be an education policy. The Opposition want the end of grant-maintained schools. There is no question about that. They do not recognise how popular those schools are with parents and children —[Interruption.] Yes, they are popular with parents in Skegness, in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Bolton and throughout the country. The trouble with the Opposition is that when they see something up and running, all they want to do is to abolish it.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has repeatedly said that there will be no change in the financial provision for a school once it has achieved grant-maintained status but that he has now said that a further £30,000 handout of taxpayers' money will be given to all grant-maintained schools? Can he assure the House that he will also make £30,000 available to every state school in the country?
    Mr. Baker: The basis of the capital funding will be the same for grant-maintained schools as for local education authority maintained schools. The amount to which the hon. Gentleman referred—up to £30,000—is intended to meet early additional expenditure which might fall on the governors of schools in preparing for grant-maintained status. Such expenditure might include advertising for staff, the introduction of financial and administrative systems and other arrangements for taking on their new responsibilities.
    Mr. Dunn: Will the Secretary of State confirm yet again that an application for grant-maintained status is a further option available to parents and governors of local schools? Does not that further option which has been made available by the Conservatives compare favourably with the Labour party's policies, which would lead to the abolition of Church schools, grammar schools, secondary modern schools, city technology colleges and the assisted places scheme and would do untold damage to the independent sector? Our policies are about choice, not discussion.
    Mr. Baker: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assistance in getting this legislation on the statute book. I confirm entirely what he said. The Labour party wants to destroy all the initiatives that we have taken. It wants to
    8
    undermine the national curriculum and private schools and destroy CTCs, grammar schools and grant-maintained schools. Its education policy is destruction and abolition.

    Language Study
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase the number of foreign languages that are currently listed under schedule 1 of the Education (National Curriculum) (Modern Foreign Language) Order 1989.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has no such plans.
    Mr. Livsey: Why is the Minister denying children the right to learn two languages, and why have the Government prevented the implementation of the Lingua programme in Britain? Is that not proof that the Conservative party is less than wholeheartedly a European party?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. In Brussels my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State negotiated Britain's participation in a substantial part of the Lingua programme, not least post-16 vocational experience and exchange for students and for teachers who travel to Europe to learn and to extend their teaching practice. Schools are outside the EEC treaty as it was negotiated. Only 40 per cent. of our 16-year-olds are learning a foreign language. Under the national curriculum all children will learn at least one foreign language. We should concentrate on doing that and being able to walk before we run.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that progress is being made in the teaching of languages and that under the core curriculum further improvements will be forthcoming? The Lingua proposal is impractical in the present climate.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. No one wishes languages to be taught more urgently than we do, which is why my right hon. Friend provided in the national curriculum for all children between 11 and 16 to learn at least one foreign language.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does not the Minister realise how complacent she sounds about the state of foreign language teaching? What reason of sovereignty denies our schoolchildren access to the resources that will be provided by the Lingua programme, or is it just the Prime Minister's pride that is denying children the opportunity of modern language teaching, which would enable them to deal better with the Common Market post 1992?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the matter, it will be interesting to know why the Labour party's proposals exclude a modern foreign language from the core curriculum.

    National Curriculum (Primary Schools)
    Mrs. Mahon: to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that teachers are fully prepared to implement the national curriculum in primary schools next term.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Specific grants are available for £100 million additional expenditure by local education

    9
    authorities to support introduction of the national curriculum. We have allowed schools two extra closure days for training, and the National Curriculum Council has provided advice and training materials.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister realise and understand the anxiety that primary school teachers feel about the nature and pace of the curriculum change? What plans does she have to provide the extra specialist training and resources necessary so that children with special needs have access to the national curriculum? Would not the Minister be the first to condemn teachers if they acted in such an irresponsible way with such haste?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady will be satisfied to know that two extra in-service training days are being provided for primary school teachers in particular to learn about and to update themselves on the national curriculum. In addition, we have made provision for all schools to have the national curriculum documents in their hands in good time, so I hope that all primary school teachers will feel themselves ready. Some provisions will not necessarily apply to children with special needs, but we want such children to study the national curriculum from day one if they can.
    Mr. Baldry: Clearly, it is vital that teachers have adequate in-service training to prepare them for the national curriculum, but is there any reason why much of that training should not take place during school holidays so as not to disrupt normal classroom activities?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Yes, I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that of the 1,265 hours that a teacher is contracted to teach, the average primary school teacher spends 850 hours in lessons. If time is allowed for breaks, assembly and supervision, primary school teachers should still have 130 hours within the allocated time outside school holidays and weekends in which to do additional training.
    Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that many primary school teachers will be horrified to hear the Minister's complacency this afternoon. Does she understand primary school teachers' fears that their professional integrity is being undermined by the completely haphazard way in the which the Government have introduced the core curriculum documents? How are teachers seriously to prepare, through training, for the teaching of English in September when the order has not yet been approved by the House? How are they to develop methods of monitoring and to agree ways in which English can be properly taught when the documents will not reach some schools until after the end of the summer term?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is exactly such an attitude that contributes to the demoralisation of teachers. Hearing such statements do not help. Primary school teachers are working extremely hard. Those whom I have met in the schools are looking forward with enthusiasm to the introduction of the national curriculum and are working hard to make their systems work. They appreciate that what they have been doing over the years has now been underwritten by Government action.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made with the establishment of city technology colleges.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The CTC programme is already a great success. Kingshurst opened last year, Nottingham and Teesside will open in September, and Bradford, Dartford, Gateshead and the London school for performing arts and technology will open in 1990. We have public commitments of sponsorship for a further seven colleges and more sponsors will bring us easily up to our target of 20.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of CTCs is based upon their popularity with parents, the motivation of their students and the commitment of their teachers? In evidence of that, does he agree that applications for Solihull's CTC doubled last year, it is now three and a half times over-subscribed and its teachers, despite earning salaries similar to those in the state sector, work a school day that is 25 per cent. longer than average, showing their commitment to the CTC concept and the ethos underlying that?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is correct. The colleges are proving to be popular. Indeed, he underestimates the popularity of the one in Solihull. In the first year, there were some 400 applications to go there, and in the second year, starting in September, there were some 1,200 inquiries from parents who wanted to send their children there. That clearly shows the school's popularity. I confirm that the schools operate for longer hours and take shorter holidays and that students and teachers want to work in them.
    Mr. Morley: Are not the funding arrangements for CTCs dramatically different from what was originally planned and is not the contribution from the private sector a shadow of what was originally proposed? Is not the Secretary of State simply buying the schools to save his own face and are not the schools irrelevant in terms of the needs of children in modern education?
    Mr. Baker: That is completely wrong. For Kingshurst, the initial contribution was £1 million. That has risen to £2 million, and the school is now on its way to a third million. Taking the programme as a whole, nearly £40 million has now been pledged by British business to this programme,
    and it will meet its obligations. This is the most successful private industrial fund-raising scheme in the history of education in this country.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that far from depriving people in schools of much-needed capital investment, the Teesside city technology college is a Government investment which comes on top of a 41 per cent. increase in capital allocation for Cleveland schools this year?
    Mr. Baker: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. I do not believe that the CTCs will have a harmful effect on the schools in their surrounding areas. In the case of Solihull and Birmingham, the other schools have already changed their curriculum, have smartened up their whole approach to attracting students and are attracting more students.
    Mr. Nellist: Has not the public funding of so-called city technology colleges removed public funding from other colleges of technology in cities, such as Oxford polytechnic? The Secretary of State will be aware—because he received on 12 May a letter from me about this case—that this has led, for example, to a second year geology student, Alexandra Spawls writing to 200 public figures asking each of them to lend her £10 until her course is finished so that she can complete a mandatory six-week solo mapping project on the Isle of Mull and thereby gain her degree, which her grant and help from Oxford polytechnic are insufficient to cover. Instead of fancy back-door privatisation schemes, the right hon. Gentleman should fully fund the existing student population, rather than turning them into beggars.
    Mr. Baker: The increase in expenditure for polytechnics this year, in current costs, is nearly 10 per cent., and I have increased the capital allocation for the polytechnic sector this year from £50 million to £84 million.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such is the popularity of Nottingham's forthcoming CTC that I receive regularly letters from my constituents in Gedling complaining that their children do not live within the catchment area of the CTC, and they very much wish that they did?
    Mr. Baker: I confirm what my hon. Friend says, and I am sure that the Nottingham CTC will be as popular as the Birmingham CTC. There is now growing demand from towns and cities all over the country to have CTCs, and I suspect that we shall exceed the original target of 20.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposals to turn the Sylvan school in Croydon and the Haberdashers' Aske girls' school in Lewisham into CTCs are so unpopular with parents that they have voted overwhelmingly against those proposals? Does he appreciate that his refusal to accept conclusively those ballot results will reveal his support for parents' rights to be nothing more than a hollow sham?
    Mr. Baker: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about Sylvan is that, as he knows, proposals for closure will be coming to me shortly and I shall decide on those proposals on their merits. As for Haberdashers' Aske, the result of the ballot shows that the majority of those voting are in favour of a CTC, and that provides a firm and clear basis on which the governors of the Haberdashers' Aske school may make a decision.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has recently received regarding the establishment of city technology colleges in London and the south-east.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am delighted to say that there is tremendous interest in the establishment of CTCs in London and the south-east. As a result, I continue to receive many representations on a number of different possibilities.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State concede that there is substantial concern among parents and teachers who might be affected by their school becoming a CTC lest their influence on the future of the school is substantially reduced? For example, Bacon school in Bermondsey, which would be entitled as an over 50-pupil school to have
    12
    five elected parents and two elected teachers, would be replaced by a school with one elected parent and one elected teacher. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to the charge that that is entirely inconsistent with the local management of schools, in which I thought be believed?
    Mr. Baker: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would make it clear whether or not he supports the Bacon initiative in his locality, despite his repeated support for a national campaign against CTCs. I know that the governors of Bacon school are considering the possibility of moving to a site in docklands with a substantial amount of industrial sponsorship. That seems to be a remarkably attractive option, but I shall of course await the outcome of their deliberations.
    Mr. Maples: In correcting the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), my right hon. Friend showed that he is aware that the parents and children of Haberdashers' Aske schools voted by a substantial majority in a joint ballot last week in favour of a proposal to convert to a CTC. Is he aware that this was in the face of concerted and orchestrated opposition by the Labour-controlled Inner London education authority to stop the ballot taking place? As the parents, teachers and governors have now voted in favour of this proposal, will he join me in hoping that the ILEA will now honour the verdict of the majority?
    Mr. Baker: I know that this was a hard-fought case and that there was considerable organised opposition to it. But, as I have made clear, the result of that ballot showed that the majority of those voting want a change and that provides a firm and clear basis on which the governors of the school can make a decision. I hope that they will make that decision very quickly indeed.

    Careers Education
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given in the current year to secondary schools with regard to careers education.
    Mr. Butcher: The Department's publication "National Curriculum—From Policy to Practice", published this year, emphasises the place of careers education and guidance within the whole curriculum. The National Curriculum Council is considering the place of personal and social education—and it sees careers education and guidance as an important part of this—in the same context.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that the entire education world in our country believes that the shortage of teachers is now steadily developing to crisis point, such that the Select Committee on Education will be making a report on this shortly? Does he also realise that the morale of teachers is so low owing to constant Government attacks on it that 40 per cent. of them would like to leave the service immediately? What kind of advice will he give to secondary school pupils about entering the teaching profession when the Government have played such havoc with the profession that people want to leave it en masse?
    Mr. Butcher: Instead of peddling alarm and despondency the hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of a number of studies of this matter. It is not as simple as he states. Indeed, I vigorously deny a number of

    13
    his assertions. I met careers guidance teachers three weeks ago and discussed their interest in ensuring the place of careers guidance within the national curriculum and was able to reassure them that this would continue.

    Deaf Children
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many deaf children have a statement of their special educational needs according to the Education Act 1981.
    Mr. Butcher: In January 1988 the total number of children in England with a statement of special educational needs under the Education Act 1981 was 138,067. We do not have separate figures for deaf children.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware of the shortcomings for children with special educational needs of the statement process as spelled out by the National Deaf Children's Society report "A Mockery of Needs"? Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that there is a need for extra resources for local authorities to ensure that all children with statements of special educational needs have access to the national curriculum? If he does not give those extra resources quickly to local authorities, will it not be just another example demonstrating that this Government simply do not care about children with special educational needs?
    Mr. Butcher: No, Sir, that is not so, whether measured by the amount of effort that has gone into the education of children with special needs and particular disabilities, or in terms of hard cash. In 1979–80 about £249 million was spent on maintained special schools. Our plans this year provide for £630 million at a time when there has been a reduction in the number of pupils in this category of 30,000. So there has been a real increase of 28 per cent. I have read the National Deaf Children's Society document. I stay in contact with this group, mainly through its Coventry branch. I find a lot in the document to support, in particular, the wishes of parents to be more closely involved. Not only I but the Department of Health will be responding shortly.
    Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain party of the country, there have been disputes about whether speech therapy is the responsibility of the district health authority or the education authority? Can my hon. Friend update the House on that?
    Mr. Butcher: I am aware that over a period of time, the role of speech therapy, both for the overall health of the child and for the educational capability of the child, has exercised the minds of many. I cannot tell my hon. Friend today precisely what the outcome of that considerable discussion will be, but I will write to him as soon as there is a clearer statement to be made.
    Mr. Ashley: Now that the pressure on school budgets is so great that it is blighting the lives of deaf children and their future careers, will the Minister accept that it is his job to ensure that local education authorities have both the freedom and the resources to help those children?
    Mr. Butcher: I dealt with the very generous provision for those categories of disability in my earlier response. May I also reassure the right hon. Gentleman on a point about which the whole House is concerned—the question
    14
    of supporting the teachers themselves in the particular skills required, whether the children are in maintained integrated schools or in special schools. On that front alone, we are providing this year £1·6 million for the training of teachers of children with hearing impairments and in 1990–91, we propose to provide £1·7 million. I hope that the earlier figures that I gave will give the right lion. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Warren: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening, I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Warren: Will my right hon. Friend make known to the Government of China today the utter revulsion of the British people at the killing and unwarranted brutality of Chinese troops in the streets and squares of Beijing and especially at the awful actions taken against the students? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible for us to continue normal relations with China while this dreadful brutality continues and will she take action on that?
    The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Everyone who witnessed those scenes on television was afflicted with utter revulsion and outrage at what had happened and at the indiscriminate firing on people who were asking only for democratic rights. It shows that Communism stands ready to impose its will by force on innocent people and we must take that into account in our views on defence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be making a statement shortly on the Government's response. I agree with my hon. Friend that, clearly, normal business with the Chinese authorities cannot continue. Our first and greatest concern has to be for the people of Hong Kong, whose confidence will be very badly shaken. Our commitment to a secure future for them is as strong as ever and we shall be looking urgently at what can be done to provide them with some reassurance.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree that the memory and meaning of one unarmed young man standing in front of a column of tanks in Beijing yesterday will remain with the British people long after the present leadership in China and what they stand for have been forgotten? Will the Prime Minister make it clear that the orders to commit mass murder given by the old men clinging to power in Beijing are unequivocally and universally condemned by the people of our country? To reinforce that message, will the Prime Minister work with our European partners to bring concerted pressure on the Chinese Government to stop the killing and to respond positively to the call for freedom being made by the people of China?
    The Prime Minister: We have made our views very clear. Indeed, the whole civilised world made its views very clear in response to the scenes it saw, as did Mr. Perez de

    15
    Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. China is, of course, a permanent member of the Security Council. Everyone has expressed outrage, horror and total and utter condemnation, and each country, both separately and jointly with others, is thinking of how best to demonstrate that in practical terms to the Chinese Government.
    Mr. John Marshall: During the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend examine the recent surveys which show that the postal services have deteriorated? Does she agree that the only way in which to improve the quality of the postal services is by the introduction of greater competition?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of some of the complaints on this matter. I agree that greater competition would be good, and we may have to consider ending the monopoly on the postal letter service, which would bring welcome competition.
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howarth: Is the Prime Minister aware that following the recent spate of serious accidents involving dogs the people of Britain expect the Government to take some action? In view of that, will she give serious consideration to the schemes advanced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Association of District Councils?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the great concern about this matter and of some of the proposals that have been made. Although some of them are undoubtedly very interesting, they would not go to the root of the problem, which is not necessarily a question of identifying the owner of the dog but of trying to persuade people to be very responsible about their ownership.
    There are already powers to control dangerous dogs. The Dogs Act 1871 provides that any member of the public can tell the police if he or she believes that any dog is dangerous. A magistrate can then issue an order for any dog to be controlled or destroyed. [Interruption.] The question is whether we need to strengthen the legislation and how we catch the people who are not being responsible about owning dogs. It is easier to pose the problem than it is to catch and severely punish the offenders.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in these difficult times with the Chinese problem the people of Hong Kong have every right to feel that the word of a Government who are willing to murder their own people is a word that may well be doubted? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for Britain at least to give Hong Kong a democratic Government and tell the Chinese Government that if they do not honour that, they will honour nothing, and that we shall not honour any pledges given to them?
    The Prime Minister: Under the declaration signed with the Government of China, we are now negotiating the Basic Law and when that is complete, we are steadily introducing an increasing amount of democratic government into Hong Kong, with the view that, by the time 1997 comes, there will be an absolutely smooth changeover,
    16
    with full democracy, so that the agreement can be fully implemented—that for 50 years after 1997 the people shall have the same system as they have now, a free democratic system, with substantially the same way of life. Obviously, whatever the declaration says, the confidence of the people of Hong Kong will be very severely jolted at present, for very understandable reasons. Without that agreement, which should bring the people of Hong Kong a much better chance than they would otherwise have, 92 per cent. of the land would automatically revert to the People's Republic of China, without the associated benefits that we have negotiated for the people of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister's words of a moment ago will be welcome, but does she realise that, in comparison with the words of President Bush, her muted response immediately following the massacre in Peking will be regarded by many as a matter of shame? Is she aware that, in comparison with the attitude of the Portuguese Government to their citizens in Macau her complete denial of moral responsibility after 1997 for those in Hong Kong who hold British passports will be regarded by many as a matter of dishonour?
    The Prime Minister: The statement that I issued said:
    "We are all deeply shocked by the news from Peking and appalled by the indiscriminate shooting of unarmed people. It is a reminder that, despite some recent easing of East-West tensions, a very great gulf remains between the democratic and the Communist societies. We view these events in Peking with particular concern because of our responsibility for Hong Kong—
    Mr. Ashdown: Concern?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister:—
    "and our obligation—which we share with the Chinese Government under the joint declaration—to safeguard Hong Kong's future stability and prosperity."
    There were two more paragraphs which, as I said earlier, said that we were shocked and appalled at such indiscriminate killing.
    The right hon. Gentleman stands up and makes a great deal of noise, but is it his only suggestion that we should accept 3·6 million people into this country regardless of the consequences?
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the possibility of this problem arising was foreseen more than 20 years ago when we passed the Commonwealth immigration legislation? Would it not be quite heartless to hold out the hope to almost 4 million people that the solution to their problems lies in emigrating to the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: Currently 3·5 million people in Hong Kong hold British dependent territory citizens' passports. Since 1945 there have been 1·6 million immigrants to Britain from the New Commonwealth. I cite those figures to show the enormity of the task. Obviously some people, especially those who have worked in certain positions for the British Crown, already have preference in securing British passports.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that it would not be right to suggest that 3.5 million people should automatically have the right of abode in this country.
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duffy: Can the Prime Minister explain why the stock market remains jittery today and why sterling continues to weaken despite higher interest rates, while cuts in prime rates and a mountain of debt fail to weaken the US dollar?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that at times of great uncertainty, such as is now the case in China, money tends to go into the dollar.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many parents of British students in Beijing, of whom I am one, are extremely grateful both to the Foreign Office and to the universities, which have been assiduous in looking after those students? Is it not a source of great pride and great relief that, as far as we know, those students are being lifted out of Beijing? Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing appreciation to both the Foreign Office and the universities?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly pay tribute both to the Foreign Office and to our ambassador in Beijing. There are only between 50 and 60 British students in and around Beijing, all of whom reached the embassy fairly quickly and are being looked after as well as is possible. It is not easy to obtain flights out of Beijing during the present troubles.
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fisher: Why will not the Prime Minister reconsider her refusal to do anything to back her condemnation of what is happening in China, or to offer practical help to the people of Hong Kong—including the Hong Kong journalist who was refused sanctuary and help by the British embassy in Beijing? Why is President Bush imposing sanctions but the right hon. Lady doing nothing?
    The Prime Minister: There will be a full statement later by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will indicate in full the measures being taken. Of course, our consul is every bit as anxious to help people who have British dependent territory passports whom we regard as our responsibility but whom the Chinese regard as Chinese. We are as anxious to help them as we are to help our own people who are in Beijing, if we can get to them to help them.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Despite what has been properly said about the millions of people involved, is my right hon. Friend aware that when we passed the British Nationality Act 1981 we did not expect the provisions of section 4(5) to allow certain citizens of Hong Kong the right of abode in this country to be used other than sparingly? However, would not we all be surprised to find that after eight years only seven applications out of thousands have been granted? Is there not a case for applying the section more flexibly and thus perhaps bringing some relief to Hong Kong?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that that section must be applied more flexibly. He will find that we are ready to do so. There is a great deal of difference between that greater flexibility that we are very ready to offer—understandably so—and saying that 3·5 million should have the right of permanent abode in this country.

NATO Summit
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting of NATO Heads of State and Government held in Brussels on 29 and 30 May, which I attended together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
The meeting approved two documents: a declaration to mark NATO's 40th anniversary; and a comprehensive concept for arms control and disarmament. Copies have been placed in the Library.
I will deal first with the declaration. This celebrates NATO's success in withstanding the test of four decades and enabling our countries to enjoy in freedom one of the longest periods of peace and prosperity in their history. It reaffirms NATO's belief in strong defence and a strategy of nuclear deterrence. It confirms that the presence of American conventional and nuclear forces remains vital to the security of Europe.
The declaration endorses NATO's conventional arms control proposals, which call for the elimination of disparities between NATO and the Warsaw pact in tanks, artillery and armoured troop carriers. It also welcomes the initiative announced by President Bush at the summit. For land-based combat aircraft and helicopters, this provides for reduction to equal ceilings at a level 15 per cent. below current Alliance holdings. All the equipment withdrawn is to be destroyed.
The initiative proposes a 20 per cent. cut in combat manpower in United States stationed forces, and a resulting ceiling of 275,000 on United States and Soviet ground and air force personnel stationed outside national territory in the area between the Atlantic and the Urals. This ceiling would require the Soviet Union to reduce its forces in eastern Europe by some 325,000. United States and Soviet forces withdrawn will be demobilised.
The American initiative sets the ambitious goal of trying to accomplish these reductions by 1992 or 1993. In addition, the declaration commends President Bush's "open skies" proposal.
The declaration also sets some very important political aims. At British initiative, it calls upon the Soviet Union and the east European countries to tear down the walls that separate us physically and politically; to ensure that people are not prevented by armed force from crossing the frontiers and boundaries which we share with the eastern countries; to respect in law and practice people's right to determine freely and periodically the nature of the government which they wish to have; and to see to it that their peoples can decide through their elected authorities what form of relations they wish to have with other countries.
I deal next with the comprehensive concept. This asserts a number of very important points: first, NATO's strategy remains one of deterrence. Secondly, conventional defence alone cannot ensure deterrence. Only the nuclear element can confront an aggressor with an unacceptable risk, and thus plays an indispensable role in the current strategy of war prevention.
Thirdly, deterrence therefore requires an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces which will continue to be kept up to date where necessary—that is, a strategy of flexible response.
20
Fourthly, nuclear forces below the strategic level make an essential contribution to deterrence. Those points match in every respect the Government's views.
The comprehensive concept also deals with the particular role of short-range nuclear forces. This section confirms that land, sea and air-based systems, including ground-based missiles, will continue to be needed in Europe. It challenges the Soviet Union to reduce unilaterally its short-range missiles—in which it has massive superiority—to NATO levels.
It states that introduction and deployment of a follow-on system to the Lance missile will be addressed in 1992. Meanwhile, NATO recognises the value of the continuing research and development work on the follow-on to Lance being done by the United States.
Once agreement has been reached on conventional force reductions and implementation of that agreement is under way, then and only then, the United States is authorised to enter into negotiations to achieve a partial reduction in short-range missiles. But no reductions will be made in NATO's SNF missiles until after the agreement on conventional force reductions has been fully implemented. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister: Moreover, it is specifically recognised that removal of the imbalance in conventional forces—
An hon. Member: That is not telling the truth.
Mr. Speaker: I heard that remark. Please withdraw it. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Whatever you require, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It was from a sedentary position, and I accept it.
The Prime Minister: Moreover, it is specifically recognised that removal of the imbalance in conventional forces would not obviate the continuing need for short-range missiles. In other words, negotiations will take place only when those strict conditions have been met—and there will be no third zero.
I pay tribute to the contribution of the Secretary-General of NATO, Dr. Woerner, in achieving that excellent result; and also to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for his very considerable part in the negotiation of the final documents.
The outcome of the summit is a great success for NATO. We have shown ourselves to be a strong, confident and united alliance, holding the initiative on arms control and challenging the Soviet and east European Governments to give their people the genuine freedom of choice which our own people enjoy. The values which have guided the West for 40 years have been reaffirmed. Our common commitment to a strong defence has been renewed. On NATO's 40th anniversary, this was a very satisfactory outcome for the Alliance and for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and specifically welcome, among other things, proposals for the elimination of disparities between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries, and the emphasis

21
given in her statement and in the communiqué to the removal of physical and political barriers between East and West, and rapid progress towards freedom of movement, thought and political and civil rights in the Warsaw pact countries. However, arising from her statement, can the Prime Minister confirm that, when she said that no reductions will be made in NATO's SNF missiles until after the agreement on conventional force reductions has been fully implemented, she did not mean that there would be no negotiations on reductions in missiles until after the conventional force agreement had been completed? [Interruption.] In view of the confusion, clarification is necessary.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that her main objectives at last week's NATO summit were, first, to gain a specific commitment to the replacement of the existing Lance missile launchers by new weapon systems with ranges of up to 485 km; secondly, to gain the specific exclusion of all possibility of negotiating short-range nuclear weapons reductions, as she made clear in her statement of 7 May that
"there can be no negotiations";
and, thirdly and consequently, to rule out explicitly any question of a third nuclear zero in central Europe at any time? Will the Prime Minister confirm that she failed to achieve a single one of those objectives?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, following Secretary of State Baker's visit to Moscow on 11 May, the Russians responded on 23 May by accepting NATO's proposed ceilings on the number of tanks and armoured vehicles, with obvious consequences for reductions in troop levels? Does she agree that it was then very wise of President Bush to lead NATO to accommodate the Soviet proposal that combat aircraft, helicopters and troops should be included in negotiations? Do those proposals and objectives have the right hon. Lady's wholehearted and unremitting support?
In the light of developments over past months, and particularly last week, is it not now obvious that the Prime Minister should change her attitudes to take advantage of changing conditions in the way that the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and other NATO countries are clearly doing'? Is the right hon. Lady prepared to join them in efforts to work to conditions in which, in President Bush's words, Europe can
"forgo the peace of tension for the peace of trust"?
Does the Prime Minister now agree with President Bush that there is a need to go "beyond containment" of the Soviet Union to a situation in which, as freedom and democracy spread in eastern Europe,
"the role of NATO shifts from the main emphasis upon deterrence"?
Is the Prime Minister aware that unless she changes she will ensure that it will be the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany that are, in President Bush's words in Mainz last Wednesday, the "partners in leadership"?
The Prime Minister: I shall read the full extent of what the comprehensive concept says about negotiations on short-range nuclear forces:
"Once implementation of such an agreement is under way"—
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: But not completed.
The Prime Minister: There is quite a lot to come yet. The comprehensive concept says:
22
"Once implementation of such an agreement is under way, the United States, in consultation with the Allies concerned, is prepared to enter into negotiations to achieve a partial reduction"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I did—
"of American and Soviet land-based nuclear missile forces of shorter range to equal and verifiable levels. With special reference to the Western proposals on CFE tabled in Vienna, enhanced by the proposals by the United States at the May 1989 Summit, the Allies concerned proceed on the understanding"—
this is the bit that the right hon. Gentleman forgot to observe—
"that negotiated reductions leading to a level below the existing level of their SNF missiles will not be carried out until the results of these negotiations have been implemented."
Negotiations do not start—precisely what I said. [Interruption.] Implemented means implemented—yes, fully implemented. No short-range nuclear missile will be taken out until the results of the conventional negotiations have been implemented. Implemented means fully implemented. The comprehensive concept says:
"Reductions of Warsaw Pact SNF systems should be carried out before that date."
On the entire comprehensive concept, it reaffirms all the principles with which we agree but which the Leader of the Opposition rejects. It states that
"for the foreseeable future there is no alternative to the Alliance's strategy for prevention of war."
Deterrence requires
"an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces which will continue to be kept up to date where necessary … Only the nuclear element can confront an aggressor with an unacceptable risk."
I am reading directly from the comprehensive concept. It says:
"Nuclear forces below the strategic level will continue to be required."
It states:
"There is … a level of forces, both nuclear and conventional, below which the credibility of deterrence cannot be maintained."
It also says that the need for short-range nuclear weapons will not be obviated by anything in the comprehensive concept.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about President Bush's proposal on the reductions of helicopters and aircraft and the amount specified in his proposals. We referred his suggestion, which must be carefully looked at, to a NATO group. France and Great Britain were both deeply concerned that it should not affect dual-capable aircraft which are vital to both our strategies, and are part of the NATO strategy. The proposal will be looked at very carefully by a group in NATO before it goes to the negotiations in Vienna. The right hon. Gentleman will find that, in the light of his recent proposals, he could not possibly have put his signature to the comprehensive concept proposals, which are excellent. They have been agreed by all the allies, and that is the strategy for the foreseeable future. They would be negated by the right hon. Gentleman's Labour policy.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members unequivocally welcome the statement on the outcome of the summit and warmly congratulate her on her important role in securing a settlement which contributes to the peace of the world and is certainly to the advantage of the West? Can she confirm that, of the 16 countries representing NATO, not one of the eight Socialist Prime Ministers had

23
any reservations about the comprehensive concept and the continuing need for nuclear weapons, unlike the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. All the countries at the summit, whether Socialist, Conservative or centre endorsed the comprehensive concept requiring a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons, and also agreed that a mix of nuclear weapons —land, sea and air-based—would be needed for the foreseeable future. All countries absolutely agreed on the concept of flexible response, which must be matched by the requisite weapons. It was a very good summit, but one to which the Labour party could never have acceded.
Mr. James Wallace: We certainly welcome the initiative taken by President Bush which largely led to the issue of an agreed communiqué. I am sure that the Prime Minister will recognise that that is not the end of the story because clearly there are differences in interpretation. Will she explain why the West German Government maintain that there is a third zero option when she denies it? In one of the many statements after the summit the Prime Minister maintained that our relationship with the United States was paramount. Does she not think that, while affirming the importance of that relationship, it is time to put the development of the European pillar and of our relationship with our European allies as a paramount consideration in our defence and foreign policy?
The Prime Minister: I cannot speak specifically for the Federal Republic of Germany. The Secretary-General of NATO, Dr Woerner, clearly said that the reduction was partial and could not be entire. Paragraph 63 of the comprehensive concept clearly states that the need for short-range nuclear weapons is not obviated. President Bush confirmed that meaning. It is the United States which will have to enter into the partial reduction of those weapons, which belong to it and, when the time comes, the United States will carry out the negotiations. That seems pretty conclusive.
With regard to President Bush's specific proposals for further reductions in conventional armaments, helicopter, aircraft and station forces are being looked at in detail by a committee of NATO. I hope that those considerations will be concluded within a comparatively short time of two months, because there must be a number of detailed considerations before detailed proposals are put on the table in Vienna.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does not the sudden and tragic change in the political scene in Beijing underline yet again the need for extreme caution in the handling of these matters, and my right hon. Friend's great wisdom in stressing that point continually in recent weeks?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What has happened in some part of Russia and—in a much worse way—in China shows that a defence policy can never be based on hope or good intentions; it can be based only on a sure defence. Those who value freedom and democracy will ensure that defences remain certain, and for the foreseeable future that will require a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons, and a mix of nuclear weapons from strategic to short range.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that NATO parliamentarians meeting in the spring session last week warmly welcomed the summit agreement and endorsed the comprehensive concept approach to arms control, but that their discussions reflected differing attitudes to negotiations on short-range nuclear forces? They probably thought that, on balance, the key lay in the Vienna talks on conventional armed forces in Europe—CFE. As so much may hinge on those talks, will the Prime Minister do whatever she can to speed up the timetable?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the negotiations in Vienna on tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery are going very well. Some proposals have been agreed and others have yet to be agreed, but agreement has not yet been reached on the monitoring and verification of the destruction of vehicles. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, that is absolutely vital: there is no earthly good in an agreement that tanks and armoured personnel vehicles shall be destroyed unless there is an adequate verification procedure, without which they might be withdrawn behind the Urals and not actually destroyed. The same goes for helicopters and other aircraft. That, unfortunately, will take some time to negotiate.
As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the question of helicopters and other aircraft must be considered carefully within NATO—because of the dual-capable aircraft and a number of other factors—as must the question of stationed forces. It is thought that the negotiations may not take too long; implementation and verification would of course take much longer. There is no delay, but we want to be certain that verification procedures are adequate so that we can keep our strong defence.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Recalling how both East and West reached their present position on disarmament, should we not pay tribute to the resolve of the British people, who consistently supported a party of nuclear deterrrence—as offered by the Conservatives in the past few general elections—in the teeth of considerable objection from Opposition parties whose policies would never have brought us to our present position? Is there not an element of humbug in the Opposition's cheering of aspects of disarmament policy from the sidelines when their policies would never have allowed us to come anywhere near the position that we have now achieved?
The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It was the firmness upheld by the Government and our NATO partners that brought the Soviet Union to the negotiating table, which I believe was an aspect of the change in its policies. Without that firmness Communism would be stronger today instead of very much weaker; without it the changes in the Soviet Union could never have come about.
Mr. John Cartwright: The military argument in favour of NATO's land-based short-range nuclear weapons has always been that they were needed to offset the Soviet supremacy in conventional firepower. If, as we all hope, the CFE negotiations will result in the removal of that Soviet threat, why do we need a new generation of SNF missiles in addition to the nuclear artillery and the sea-launched and air-launched nuclear weapons that NATO already deploys in Europe?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will find the answer in paragraph 63 of the comprehensive concept. The removal of the imbalance in conventional forces would provide scope for further reductions in the sub-strategic nuclear forces of members of the integrated military structure, although it would not obviate the need for such forces. The hon. Gentleman will find an expansion of that in the comprehensive concept. Short-range nuclear weapons must be available to commanders in the field at all stages so that at any time a potential aggressor could not be certain whether they would be used. That is an essential part of flexible response. [Interruption.] I am not preaching to the hon. Gentleman: I would not waste my breath. I am trying to quote from the comprehensive concept.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the concept of a Europe whole and free embraces the notion of a united Germany? Does she regard that as a stabilising or a destabilising consideration in the future of Europe?
The Prime Minister: The declaration envisages that possibility when it says that the peoples of any particular country should be able to say through their elected representatives—and of course we want democracy in each of them—what its relationship to other countries should be. That idea is embodied in the declaration.
Ms. Clare Short: Does not the Prime Minister understand that the best help we can give to the people of eastern Europe in enhancing democracy and their economic development is to agree to arms reductions on both sides? The right hon. Lady alone in NATO is blocking those processes by pushing for modernisation and opposing the third zero. Her rhetoric belongs to the past. She does not understand the new era that is now possible—a free and united Europe. She is blocking the development of democracy in eastern Europe.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady talks nonsense, and she is the prisoner of her own propaganda. It was this Government who, together with our partners in NATO, put on the table in Vienna proposals for very deep cuts in tanks, armoured personnel vehicles and artillery, to bring down their numbers far lower than the Soviet Union ever thought of. We are pursuing those reductions, but we insist on a proper procedure for verifying the destruction of those weapons. To do anything else would be highly dangerous to the future of democracy and freedom in western Europe.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Brussels declaration, which reaffirms the necessity for nuclear deterrence, would not in all conscience have been signed by anyone who was a member of CND?
The Prime Minister: Confirmed absolutely.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Prime Minister make clear exactly how she stands on the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons? Is she really saying that, regardless of what reductions are achieved in conventional weapons, NATO should persist in modernising the remaining short-range weapons that presumably it must have to maintain a flexible response? If that is what the right hon. Lady is saying, is that not to be interpreted as a prophecy of doom—that no matter how
26
the Soviets use their resources, be they conventional or chemical, NATO's response would have to include retaliation by use of a nuclear deterrent?
The Prime Minister: I repeat that to which 16 nations agreed in the comprehensive concept—
Mr. Douglas: Did you agree?
The Prime Minister: Of course I agreed to it wholeheartedly, on behalf of the Government and people of this country:
"The removal of the imbalance in conventional forces would provide scope for further reductions in sub-strategic nuclear forces … though it would not obviate the need for such forces."
Therefore, the need for them remains.
Mr. Douglas: Regardless?
The Prime Minister: Regardless? That is the principle of Alliance security set out in the comprehensive concept. It states also:
"for the foreseeable future there is no alternative to the Alliance's strategy for prevention of war."
Deterrence requires
"an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear, and conventional forces which will continue to be kept up to date where necessary."
The concept goes on to refer to short-range nuclear forces also, in paragraph 27:
"The Allies sub-strategic nuclear forces arc not designed to compensate for conventional imbalances … Their -ole is to ensure that there arc no circumstances in which a potential aggressor might discount the prospect of nuclear retaliation in response to military action. Nulcear forces below the strategic level thus make an essential contribution to deterrence."
Sixteen nations signed up to that agreement—but not the Labour party.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Before she left for Brussels, did my right hon. Friend find time to read the comment of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that she would be alone and totally isolated? In light of the fact that NATO unanimously reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear deterrence, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the
Labour party and the right hon. Member for Gorton who are totally isolated, particularly from their fellow Socialists in Europe, who entirely support nuclear deterrence?
The Prime Minister: Far from being isolated, we were very prominent in negotiating an excellent result. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was particularly prominent in negotiating the final language of the communiqué, especially that concerned with short-range nuclear forces. Altogether it was a very satisfactory conference and result for the United Kingdom and for the Alliance. The Opposition could never have signed that as their policy rejects flexible response and want a third zero—both those options were negated by what we agreed. The Labour party wants to get rid of all nuclear weapons, whereas the NATO summit particularly confirmed the continuing need for a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons. We value democracy and freedom enough to defend it adequately on behalf of the people.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Prime Minister enlighten the House? At what stage is she

27
prepared to put British land-based aircraft into the negotiations on the reduction of conventional weapons in Europe?
The Prime Minister: We are not prepared to put dual-capable aircraft into the negotiations, for obvious reasons—obvious from what the hon. Gentleman said. The proposal is for a reduction in aircraft of something like 15 per cent., and we are advised that that should not include dual-capable aircraft.
Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield): My right hon. Friend will be aware that today we celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Anglo-American landings in Normandy to set Europe free. Will she confirm that the Anglo-American partnership within NATO is as strong and united as ever? Does she further agree that the way to freedom in the Eastern bloc is a strong Western democracy?
The Prime Minister: Yes. President Bush reaffirmed once again the United States' commitment to the defence of Europe and its forces to Europe. Of course, Europe would not be free had it not been for the devotion and the forces of the United States. We are eternally grateful for that and for the United States' continuing commitment. The comprehensive concept sets out the need for land-based nuclear missiles from America to be present in Europe.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to share with our NATO allies the concerns expressed by one of the Ministers at the Foreign Office about the blackmail of Labour Members of Parliament? Does she share those concerns?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that such thoughts were never mentioned at NATO. He is fully aware of the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs published and which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made quite clear.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend note that at about the same time as the NATO summit President Gorbachev announced an increase in spending on defence several times higher than had previously been announced? Does my right hon. Friend agree that against that background we should have looked extremely stupid in NATO and in Britain had we taken the blindest notice of the puny and supine attitude adopted over the years by the Leader of the Opposition and his party?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Warsaw pact countries, particularly the Soviet forces, have immensely increased large numbers of conventional weapons over ours and will continue to do so for a long time to come. Even if a conventional agreement was signed, it would take a long time to get Soviet forces down and verified to the levels we seek, and during that time we should be extremely vulnerable. Even after that, we should need a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons to be a proper deterrent.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Prime Minister ever agree to dual-capable aircraft being included in the
28
negotiations? What does she have against parallel negotiations on conventional and strategic nuclear forces? Is it not time that we stopped nuclear modernisation and gave peace a chance?
The Prime Minister: Reductions in strategic arms by the Soviet Union and United States have recommenced. Discussions on reductions in conventional weapons will go ahead at Vienna, and there will also be talks on reducing chemical weapons. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Soviet Union has enormous superiority in forces, weaponry and aircraft, which will remain for a long time. Conservative Members are concerned to ensure that we have a proper and effective defence.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has Mr. Bush suggested that Tornado be included in the package for negotiation? Do the comments that the Prime Minister made today about modernisation accord with statements made to the West German Parliament by Mr. Kohl?
The Prime Minister: No, President Bush has not suggested that Tornado be included. He has made general proposals and is aware of our view on dual-capable aircraft. Our advice is that they need not be included in the 15 per cent., and that is our understanding. Of course the details are to be worked out—it is vital how they are spread—in a NATO group before they are put on the table at Vienna. Detailed proposals will need to be put on the table. [Interruption.] I do not answer for Chancellor Kohl, who is well able to speak for himself. He signed up for the comprehensive concept, and when I challenged everyone assembled at NATO that it did not mean a third zero no one dissented from my view. The Secretary-General of NATO and President Bush said that "partial" means partial, and only partial. Germany signed, in paragraph 63, for the fact that anything in the comprehensive concept does not obviate the need for short-range nuclear weapons. I assume that Germany will keep the word to which she honourably put her name.
Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the far-reaching communiqué that was made soon after the summit is acutely embarrassing to those who have supported CND and unilateralism and to those who have been apologists for Soviet imperialism? When dealing with questions put to her, often by Labour Members, will she continue to practise the Christian virtue of forgiveness?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Sixteen Governments agreed this most far-reaching communiqué, which sets the strategy for the foreseeable future. Precious few Labour Members would agree anything of it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not the Prime Minister's obsession with modernisation a back-door means of fuelling the arms race? As the Prime Minister has been talking about freedom and democracy, perhaps she will explain to the House what freedom and democracy British people have if nuclear arms are used—she has repeated that she is prepared to use them if necessary—to turn our part of the planet into a radioactive cinder heap?
The Prime Minister: Unless one is prepared to use weapons, they are not, and never could be, a deterrent. I say again that 16 nations across Europe and the other side of the Atlantic —the United States, Canada and the

29
nations of Europe belonging to NATO going way beyond the European Community—signed the treaty, including other Socialist Governments. The Labour party could not sign the document and therefore could not accept the shield and defence of NATO. What a pity Labour Members are such a puny lot.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most critical reasons for our retention of tactical nuclear weapons is the overwhelming number of chemical weapons that the Soviet Union possesses—approximately one quarter of its forward stocks of ammunition? Does she further agree that those weapons give the Soviet conventional forces an overwhelming advantage, which is further enhanced by their numerical superiority?
The Prime Minister: I agree that the Soviets have colossal superiority in chemical weapons, a point that is dealt with effectively in this year's defence White Paper. In 1991 the older chemical weapons that the United States has stationed in the Federal Republic will be withdrawn and then we shall be without any chemical weapons unless modernised ones are substituted and stationed. In that case, our only response to the use of chemical weapons would be nuclear, and that is an additional reason for keeping nuclear weapons.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Why is it so difficult for the right hon. Lady to admit that a major change has taken place in recent times in the special relationship between America and the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: The alliance between the United States and Canada and the European partners of NATO is as firm as ever it was, and it is that which makes our defence sure. The major change that has taken place has been in the approach, opinions and views of the Soviet Union, a change that would never have come about but for the firmness of people who share our views on defence.

China
4.10 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about events in China in recent weeks.
During the last few days, units of the Chinese army have been engaged in the violent suppression of peaceful and popular demonstrations in the streets of Peking. The indiscriminate and unprovoked use of military force has caused the death or injury of thousands of students and other innocent civilians.
I am sure that all Members of the House will share the worldwide sense of horror and join in the international condemnation of the slaughter of innocent people.
I summoned the Chinese charge d'affaires yesterday. I told him that the British Government and people were united in condemning the merciless treatment of peaceful demonstrators, and deeply deplored the use of force to suppress the democratic aspirations of the Chinese people. 1 told him that the British Government looked to the Chinese authorities to fulfil their obligations to Hong Kong in the joint declaration of 1984. 1 reminded him of the responsibilities of the Chinese Government to ensure the safety of British citizens and Hong Kong residents.
I expressed concern at the maltreatment of British journalists, particularly Michael Fathers of The Independent and Johnathan Mirsky of The Observer. We have since seen disturbing reports of the ill-treatment of Kate Adie of the BBC.
Our ambassador in Peking and his staff have been working round the clock to ensure the safety of British citizens and Hong Kong residents in Peking and, as far as possible, in other parts of China. The embassy hay, advised against travel to any part of China. It has also advised those who are concerned about their safety and have no pressing need to remain in China to leave immediately.
Since the cultural revolution there has been a substantial improvement in relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China as the Chinese Government have sought to broaden their contacts with the international community and to introduce economic and other reforms. Friends of China in this House and around the world must share the hope that sane and balanced government will be swiftly and securely restored in Peking. In present circumstances, however, there can be no question of continuing normal business with the Chinese authorities.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided on the following action.
All scheduled ministerial exchanges between Britain and China have been suspended. The visit of the Chinese Minister of Justice, who was due to arrive here tomorrow, has been cancelled. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also cancelled his forthcoming visit to China.
The proposed visit of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to China in November clearly cannot take place so long as those responsible for the atrocities over the past weekend remain in control of the Chinese Government.
All high-level military contacts with China have been suspended.
All arms sales to China have been banned.

31
At the same time, the Government are examining how we can respond to any requests for humanitarian assistance from non-governmental organisations.
The whole House will share the Government's special concern about the implications for Hong Kong of what has been happening in Peking. The Government understand and share the grave concern felt by the people of Hong Kong. We have all been deeply impressed by the strength and restraint of their response to what has happened.
Everything that has been accomplished in Hong Kong has been achieved in the unique context of the geography and history of the territory and by the talent and enterprise of its people. All of that underlines the extent to which the future prosperity of Hong Kong must depend on a successful and secure partnership with the Government and people of China. That objective is enshrined in the commitments made by the British Government and the Government of China under the joint declaration. Those commitments were reaffirmed by the charge d'affaires when he called on me yesterday.
But it is self-evident that if we are to have confidence in the commitment of the Chinese Government to their obligations, there must be a stable and responsible Government in Peking. The British Government will stand by their obligations under the joint declaration. The Government and the House look to the Government of the People's Republic of China to live up to that international commitment as well.
The events in Peking must affect the prospects and procedure for implementation of the joint declaration. Consultations about the second draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong have been suspended. It is also difficult to see how our own contacts with the Chinese Government about the future of Hong Kong can continue in present circumstances.
Meanwhile, I assure the House that we shall be conducting a thorough examination of the programme for advancing and consolidating effective democracy in Hong Kong. We are considering urgently what further steps can be taken to enshrine and protect Hong Kong's freedoms and way of life after 1997.
All of us in this House are acutely conscious of the wish of the people of Hong Kong to secure some form of assurance for themselves and their families. I know that this has been one of the issues studied by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Some commentators have recommended that a right of abode in this country should be given to the 31/4 million people in Hong Kong who hold British nationality. We share the desire of the House to do everything we can to enhance the security of the people of Hong Kong. On that basis, the Government are looking urgently and sympathetically at the scope for flexibility. But the House will appreciate the reason why we could not easily contemplate a massive new immigration commitment which could—and the possibility cannot be disregarded —more than double the ethnic minority population of the United Kingdom.
Our overriding aim must be to do everything possible to secure the continuation of those conditions in Hong Kong that have led to its outstanding success over the last
32
century. I hope the House will send a message to the people of Hong Kong reaffirming our commitment to their secure, stable and prosperous future.
The Chinese people are seeking from their Communist leadership rights and liberties which are taken for granted in the free world. The slaughter in Peking is a tragic setback to the campaign for democracy, but I hope this House will send a united message. China cannot ignore the lessons which are being learned elsewhere in the world. Economic prosperity and personal liberty go hand in hand. People will not for ever tolerate government by repression.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friends and I condemn outright and in the strongest terms the abominable massacres which have been perpetrated in Beijing. Those of us who have great feelings of friendship for China and have watched its political and economic progress with hope and satisfaction are particularly appalled at this regression to barbarity. It is impossible for us to return to those attitudes so long as this bloodstained repression continues and until it is clear that those in control of China repudiate it.
The scenes of carnage on our television screens have horrified us all. I pay tribute to the courageous journalists who have reported the events, and in particular to the remarkable Kate Adie of the BBC who has risked her life to get the news to Britain.
We admire the swift and positive action taken by President Bush to demonstrate the anger of the United States.
We support the action which Her Majesty's Government have taken and which the Foreign Secretary has just announced. I wish, though, that as well as suspending arms sales—and of course we support that suspension—he would examine the possibility of cancelling all other exports to China, including exports of vehicles which could be used for repression of the civilian population.
I also ask whether the Foreign Secretary will consult the other Governments of the European Community to ensure that firm and concerted action is taken by the whole Community. I should be grateful if he could tell the House what action the United Kingdom Government are considering taking in the United Nations on this matter.
We have been told—and of course we welcome it—about the action which the Government are taking, so far as they can, to protect and assist British citizens at present in Beijing and any other areas that may be affected. Will our embassy also be accepting its responsibility for the safety of Hong Kong citizens—journalists, business people and others—who may be caught up in these disturbances?
It is essential for the Government to take whatever action is open to them to provide reassurance for the people of Hong Kong. In eight years their colony is due to be incorporated into China, but only if the safety, welfare and governance of Hong Kong remain the sole responsibility of this United Kingdom House of Commons.
As the Foreign Secretary knows, the Opposition recommended that elections to the Hong Kong Legislative Council should take place last year. That was not done. We now ask the Foreign Secretary urgently to consider the possibility of bringing forward the elections scheduled for 1991 if possible to this year, but certainly to no later than

33
next year, and that a higher proportion of the Legislative Council be directly elected. This would be a signal to the people of Hong Kong of our concern for their assured democratic future and to the Government of China that Britain is determined that the terms of the joint declaration be adhered to by them as well as by the United Kingdom.
I suggest to the Foreign Secretary that as soon as possible he should himself go to Hong Kong to discuss the possibility of advancing the election date, as well as to explain to the people and representatives of Hong Kong what he means in his statement today by talking about flexibility regarding the right of abode in this country. I also suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider travelling as soon as practicable to Beijing to obtain from the Chinese Government the firmest possible assurances that the joint declaration will be adhered to—[Interruption.] I would have thought that that would gain assent from the overwhelming majority in the House.
These are times of turmoil and I do not for a moment suggest that the Government should pretend to be able to do more than they can do. At the same time, whatever can be done must be done, for the sake of the people of Hong Kong and to make it clear to the Government of China that, while China should be welcomed into the wider world community as a great and growing power, that welcome must be conditional upon the Government of China conducting themselves in accordance with the standards of civilisation that they have been trampling on in recent days.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the generally supportive tone of everything that he has had to say because it is clear that on all these matters there is very widespread agreement in the House.
I begin by echoing his tribute to the journalists of the BBC, Independent Television and the newspapers, and indeed to those of other countries. One of the most remarkable features of what has been happening in the last few weeks has been the continued opportunity for the rest of the world to see what has been going on in Peking, and also for Peking to know what has been going on in the rest of China, as a result of the free transmissions of radio from the rest of the world. The openness which has been at least a part of what has taken place in China has played a crucial part in events thus far.
The second question which the right hon. Gentleman raised was about the possibility of extending a prohibition to other exports to China, with particular reference to vehicles. Obviously all such questions must remain under consideration. Our basic principle is to subscribe to the position as outlined by President Bush, that it is important to maintain diplomatic, commercial and other human contacts, so far as is safe and possible, with the people and Government of China in order to try and retain the opportunity for recreating their previous open disposition.
European Community co-operation is under urgent consideration among the 12 countries and the Political Committee is meeting today. Already, the meeting due to take place between the Commission and a Chinese ministerial mission yesterday has been cancelled.
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has expressed his own personal and deep concern about what has happened and has called for the restoration of restraint and moderation in Beijing. However, it is also plain that there
34
is particular difficulty in pursuing in that organisation questions about human rights affecting one of the permanent members of the Security Council.
I made it plain in my statement that the British embassy has been putting great efforts into protecting and establishing contact with all British nationals and Hong Kong people in Beijing and elsewhere in China, without differentiation.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the matter of representative government in Hong Kong. It is important to recognise that the changes that we have sought to introduce so far in that respect have been those that command the widest possible support in the territory.
Mr. George Foulkes: Matters have changed since then.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will come on to that. It is also equally clear that in the light of recent events, opinion in Hong Kong has been evolving—[Interruption.] Wait for it. Even before the events of last weekend, the Executive and Legislative Councils called unanimously for full democracy by 2003—[Interruption.] That is what they called for. It is right that we should consider, in light of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and debates in this House, how we should respond to those views.
I welcome the importance attached by the right hon. Gentleman to the joint declaration. That declaration embodies the substantial principles on which the future of Hong Kong should be built. The crucial point is to secure compliance with that declaration, translated into the Basic Law, as fully and effectively as possible by a responsible Government in Beijing.
I recognise that there is wisdom in trying to find an opportunity to establish contact with ministerial opposite numbers in Beijing as soon as it makes sense to do that. It is equally clear that it would not make sense to try to do so in the present circumstances. The suggestion of a visit to Hong Kong is sensible and I will discuss it with the Governor of Hong Kong in London later this week.
Mr. David Howell: After the atrocities and butchery in Peking at the weekend—which my right hon. and learned Friend has rightly condemned, as the world condemns them, in the strongest terms that our language allows—will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure, if and when discussions resume in the joint liaison group about implementing the 1984 treaty, that we seek to make it absolutely clear to the Beijing regime and its officials that if they want to see a stable and prosperous Hong Kong, as they say they do, they must accept and support every measure that we deem necessary to bring that about and to maintain confidence in Hong Kong? Will he also remind the Beijing regime, when discussions begin again, that its obligations to maintain the stability, growth and prosperity of Hong Kong and its people exist not only now and up to 1997, but for 50 years thereafter and in perpetuity?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the measured wisdom and authority of his remarks. I know that he and his colleagues on the Select Committee have been paying the closest attention to these matters in the important work that they have been doing. It is an important feature of the joint declaration that the Government of the People's Republic of China recognise,

35
without qualification, the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the administration of Hong Kong until 1997, which is a responsibility that we shall continue to discharge to the fullest of our ability. It is also important for my right hon. Friend to remind the House and, through the House, the Government of the People's Republic of China of their responsibilities in the years that extend beyond 1997, under the joint declaration for a full span of 50 years, but in practice and aspiration way beyond that into the future.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is probably right, after our initial responses, to wait a few days to see how things develop in China. If democracy were to triumph in what is clearly a developing power struggle, everything would be well, but I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is right to begin to think ahead, in case the worst should happen. Is it not the case that, under the joint declaration, the army that we have seen butchering its fellow citizens on the streets of Peking will be on the streets of Hong Kong in eight years' time? Is it surprising, therefore, that the last vestige of faith that many in Hong Kong had in the joint declaration, has been severely damaged and will have to be patiently rebuilt?
Let me welcome two aspects of the Foreign Secretary's statement. He said that negotiations taking place under the joint declaration will be suspended. Will he use the interim to try to build up international support for the joint declaration, perhaps through the medium of the United Nations? I welcome, too, the Foreign Secretary's flexible attitude to the application of the British Nationality Act. Does he realise that many will be watching closely to see how that develops?
I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider three further steps. First, will he set as the target that he has identified for the development of democracy in Hong Kong the establishment by 1991 of a Legislative Council at least half of whose members have been directly elected? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why half?"] At least half, as a first step, by 1991.
Secondly, when the excellent David Wilson's term as Governor of Hong Kong is up, will the Foreign Secretary consider providing a Hong Kong belonger to take his place—perhaps one elected from the Legislative Council?
Thirdly, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that all free western democracies have a real national interest in ensuring that democracy survives in Hong Kong? Does he agree that there may be a case for the Government considering a conference of the free western democracies to see whether an agreement could be reached whereby they could provide a last-resort sanctuary for the people of Hong Kong, as the ultimate bulwark for the survival of democracy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am impressed by the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman has learnt the case for patience. It is certainly right that we should await developments in Peking, because no one can yet foresee what will happen there, and much depends upon it.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right—I welcome his remarks—to underline the importance of the joint declaration and of securing the effective commitment of the Chinese Government to that declaration.
36
The right hon. Gentleman drew attention in particular to the need to mobilise international support for the joint declaration. It was for that reason that the declaration was drawn up in the form of an international agreement and registered by both nations simultaneously at the United Nations. For that reason, incidentally, when I presided over the 40th anniversary meeting of the Security Council —with the Chinese Foreign Minister—I drew attention to the importance of the agreement that had been arrived at between us. The then Chinese Foreign Minister endorsed the agreement in the presence of that body. The highest solemnity needs to be attached to that if the Chinese Government are to be reminded of the importance that we attach to the declaration.
The right hon. Gentleman made some suggestions. On the composition of the Legislative Council, I have already made it plain that options and opinions are evolving in Hong Kong as a result of recent events. As soon as a clear view emerges, we shall be considering the best and most effective way to give effect to that. That is one of the matters that I shall wish to discuss when I am able to visit Hong Kong.
It is much too early to consider the replacement of the present Governor of Hong Kong, but the whole House will welcome the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to the quality of Sir David Wilson, who has been bearing a heavy burden in recent weeks.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the prospect of an international conference on the refuge of last resort. I do not think that that is the right way of handling the matter. It is most important to concentrate not only on aspects of British nationality law but on the best way of restoring confidence in the prospects for Hong Kong.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he deserves the support of the whole House for his excellent statement and for the line that the Government have been taking throughout on China and Hong Kong? Will he transmit to the people of Hong Kong the assurance that the House continues to remain deeply interested in their welfare and that they have our continued support?
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the increased political awareness of the people of Hong Kong in the past few weeks and to the unanimous recommendation of the Executive and Legislative Councils calling for more rapid progress towards direct elections. Is not that a significant resolution? Does it not represent the first statement that gives the point of view of Hong Kong as a whole about the speed of progress towards direct elections—something for which the Basic Law drafting committee has been calling?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support for my statement. I am sure that the people of Hong Kong will take note of the very widespread support throughout the House for the opinions that I have tried to express. There is a close and continuing interest in this Parliament's discussion of the affairs of Hong Kong, which is a natural reflection of the link between that country and the prospects of democratic government.
I acknowledge the importance of my right hon. Friend's last point. The resolution unanimously arrived at by the Executive and Legislative Councils before the events of last weekend is important and we should take account of it. We should do so on the same basis that we have

37
followed to date, which is to try to identify the basis that commands the widest possible support in the territory and then to commend that to the draftsmen of the Basic Law.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, for more than 20 years I have been a proponent of good relations with China and the need to understand political developments in that enormously important country. Will he believe me this afternoon if I say that I share the universal revulsion that has been expressed at the conduct of the geriatric Chinese Government during the last few days? Does he accept that I strongly support the actions that he has adumbrated this afternoon? However, will he reconsider the statement that both he and the Prime Minister have made, that were there to be any lessening of the restraints on British nationals coming to this country from Hong Kong, a flood of 3·5 million people would be battering at the gates of Dover? Would it not be more honest to admit that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could get his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reconsider the issue, it would be a matter of only 10,000 or 15,000 people a year, for six years, from the very limited categories for which, as he knows well, the Hong Kong Commission has been arguing the case for reconsideration? Will he discuss that specific matter with the Home Secretary?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I acknowledge the force of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. All who have watched with growing interest and enthusiasm the emergence of a new-style China during the past 10 years will share the hon. Gentleman's sense of deep grief at what has happened during recent weeks. It is important to note that there are still many people inside China and representing her throughout the rest of the world who also share that sense of grief. It is for that reason that we hope that common sense will be restored to authority in Peking before too long.
The hon. Gentleman rightly drew a distinction between the implied threat of a mass movement of people, which would happen if we tried to deal at once with 3·25 million people, and the alternative, to which I drew attention, of flexibility in the management of individual cases. That matter is certainly a topic for discussion between myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I do not ignore its importance.
Mr. Robert Adley: I share the disgust of the House and the whole of the free world for the unspeakable events in China. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in reality, our ability to influence what we would all like to happen—that is, the emergence of what he described as a sane and balanced Government in Beijing—is infinitesimal? Would it not, therefore, be wise to avoid giving the present blood-stained leaders any opportunity to continue holding power by playing the xenophobia card?
As regards Hong Kong, will my right hon. and learned Friend repeat what our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so clearly said, that 1997 is not a date produced out of thin air but the date when our lease ends? The only alternative to an agreement with China is no agreement, an eventuality that would make political boat people out of the whole population of Hong Kong.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House—although it needs no reminding—of the
38
inescapable facts of geography and history to which I referred in my statement. One such fact is the expiry of the lease in 1997. It is on that basis that we have secured the support of the House for the achievements of the joint declaration, to which the House attaches importance. My hon. Friend is also right to warn against xenophobia in any aspect of managing a problem of such complexity. I think that he would go too far if he were to believe that the capacity of people outside China to influence the future there should be described as infinitesimal. Of course, the prospect of having influence upon a mass population of 1·25 billion and on the people who seek to govern that country is in one sense very small. Yet, if one thinks of the huge impact of the opinion of the rest of the world as a result of the openness that has come about in recent years, if one thinks of the incredible reality that the leader of the Soviet Union was there only a few weeks ago, being hailed as a champion of democracy, and if one thinks of the changes that have been able to have an impact on that society, my hon. Friend should not despair too much of the ability of the rest of us to make some impact on prospects for the people of China.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the great majority of people in China, as they learn the facts, must share the horror of the rest of the world about the events in Beijing and the massacre of citizens and students last Sunday? In those changed circumstances, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the speedy introduction of direct elections for the majority of the members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong would not only give the people of Hong Kong the best chance of securing their own security but would also be a demonstration to the people of China that it is possible speedily, responsibly and with restraint to introduce democracy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the hon. Gentleman has rightly put his finger on one of the most important new factors in the scene, a factor that has already affected the evolution of opinion in Hong Kong, the extent to which the shape of representative institutions in Hong Kong can serve not only as a bulwark for their own freedom but as an example to the Chinese people. It is with that in mind that we shall take account as urgently as would make sense of the evolution of new thinking on the topic within Hong Kong itself.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I regard what he has just said as of particular significance? The question of confidence for the future of the people of Hong Kong is a delicate matter upon which the future, not only of Hong Kong but of many of our own interests and those of China itself, hangs. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore take on board the strong feeling that many of us heard over the weekend from all sections of Hong Kong society urging him onwards with the firm commitment, that I believe he is making, to review again the process of democracy so that when the time comes we can really test in the 50-year period the one-country, two-system claim?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is more than entitled to remind me of the importance of the opinion and aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. Throughout all the months and years that I have been concerned with the question I have tried as far as possible to display sensitivity

39
to their feelings. During the early and difficult months of negotiation I went to the territory to try to explain to the people and to their representatives how the matter was proceeding. Perhaps no one recognises more than I do the importance of continuing to strengthen that bond of trust between the people and those who represent them, however indirectly, in this Parliament.
Dr. John Marek: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it was a welcome change to hear him say that he would consult the people of Hong Kong to bring forward democracy as quickly as possible? Will he also accept that the answer to the question whether democracy is wanted in Hong Kong was given not by Legco or by any sampling of opinion but by the people of Hong Kong in the last week, and that there is abundant evidence that the people want democracy to the same extent as the Foreign Secretary of any other hon. Member wants it for the United Kingdom? Will he therefore do his best to make sure that the consultations are as quick and as sharp as possible and that an announcement is made within the next few weeks to reassure the people of Hong Kong on this important matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman when he said that it is a welcome change that we have been engaging in consultation with the people of Hong Kong. Throughout we have sought to consult their opinions directly and through their representatives as carefully as possible.
On the second point, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to draw attention to the opinions expressed not only by the members of Legco and the Executive Council but by the people of Hong Kong more directly. He would not be prudent to urge us to jump to a single conclusion on the basis of that, however understandable it may be. We must consider carefully with those who have been governing Hong Kong in recent weeks and months as well as with the people of Hong Kong the right way of responding to the undoubted new needs that exist.
Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my recollection that in the lifetime of the People's Republic of China there have been massive and often violent upheavals every five years, such as the great leap forward, the back to the land campaign and the cultural revolution, leading to loss of confidence in Hong Kong, flight and a search for foreign passports? During that period the Chinese Government, of whatever complexion, still maintained their international agreements. Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind those who are seeking to use the present troubles to propagate their own ideas, whether on passports to this country or on elections in Hong Kong, of that fact and also point out to them that any such proposals must be considered against the overriding need to preserve the peace and prosperity of Hong Kong?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend, with his close experience of the territory, reminds the House of some important points. Of course, we have to consider all those matters in the light of our experience of the long history of relations between China and the outside world. It is certainly right to remind the House of the frequency with which the Government of China, even in recent
40
circumstances, have emphasised their intention to continue to respect their international agreements. That was one point specifically made to me by the chargé in the exchange of opinion last night. It is important not only to remind the House but for us to remind the Government of the People's Republic of China of their repeated commitment to international obligations.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Despite the problems and the inescapable facts of geography, is it conceivable that there could be effective implementation of agreements with the present leadership, with its bloodstained hands that have been responsible for the death of so many thousands of its own citizens?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Plainly, so long as the leadership responsible for the events of the last few days, which the whole House has been mourning and condemning, remains in authority the matter will be fraught with a great deal of difficulty. That is why I responded to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) by emphasising the need for us to see how events unfold. In the long history of China one hopes that the events of the last few weeks may be regarded as only part of a chapter and that a new chapter will begin sooner rather than later.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: While I in no way advocate the admission of 3·25 million people to this country, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the evidence to the Select Committee of Lord MacLehose? Dealing with the difficult matter of categories, he said that for many years Governments in this country had used considerable ingenuity to keep people out of the United Kingdom and pointed out that it was perhaps time for them to use a little of that ingenuity to let a few in. How does my right hon. and learned Friend react to that, and how flexible is flexible?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certainly aware of that observation by the noble Lord MacLehose in his evidence to the Select Committee. Of course, it was only part of a more substantial body of evidence. I have drawn attention to the need to recognise the case for flexibility. I think that I would be unwise to be cross-examined by my hon. and learned Friend any further on that at this time.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Foreign Secretary accept the analysis that some old men in Peking have, unforgivably, brought in the Manchurian army, some of whose grandfathers were probably the worst and most hated persecutors of the Chinese at the time of the Japanese war? In such circumstances are we wise to say that we should break off all contacts, because there are five or six different Chinas? In particular, what advice would the Foreign Secretary give to the city of Edinburgh with its contacts with Xian where the people probably disapprove, just as much as the House does, of what has happened in Peking?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has committed himself to some unusually wise observations. He was certainly right to draw attention—as I have tried to do—to the huge diversity of opinion within China, which is why so many of us have expressed the hope with great fervour, although not yet with a great deal of confidence, that the sane, responsible China will prevail. That is why he was right to point out the need to maintain contact and relations of a personal, political and cultural

41
kind with the rest of China. It is in that way that we shall keep the spirit of democracy and the hope for the future alive in that great people.
Sir Philip Goodhart: If the violence and the repression of democratic dissidents continue, is it not plain that another flood of refugees will be heading towards Hong Kong? Are we making any contingency plans to help the colony to deal with that potential flood of asylum seekers?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a hazard that may develop. He will appreciate, of course, the extent to which Hong Kong is already facing very real problems from the number of boat people who for various reasons still arrive there. All I can say at this stage is that any question of refugee status for any individual would have to be considered separately and when it arose.
Mr. Jack Thompson: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that I, along with four other hon. Members, have recently returned from China and Hong Kong. We were in Beijing during the beginnings of the student demonstrations about three weeks ago. I find it, therefore, heartrending to see on television the very same streets that I walked upon now covered with dead bodies, blood and wrecked vehicles.
The discussions that we had with the students in the square at that time clearly indicated that all that the students wanted to do was to talk to the Government. The end result of the Chinese Government not talking to the students or their representatives has been confrontation, chaos, conflict and death. Is not the lesson to be learnt that, when a Government refuse to talk to their people, the end result will be what we have seen on television during the past few days?
In the very brief time we spent in Hong Kong, we discovered that what the people of Hong Kong—I emphasise the people of Hong Kong—clearly desire from the British Government is a very early change over to representative government in Hong Kong. If it were possible for the Government to take that wish into account and to bring the elections forward, that would restore some of the confidence in the people of Hong Kong, which has been greatly shattered in the past few days.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the extent to which the hon. Member is moved by his recent experience of Peking. We all have recollections of our first contacts with the emergence of proper democratic institutions in that country. He is right to draw attention to the far greater scope for wise government that is available to Governments who engage in dialogue and communication with their people. We fortunately have that kind of relationship through the hon. Gentleman, and through many other hon. Members, with the people of Hong Kong, and we are able to hear and take account of their views. The tragedy of what has happened in Peking is that such an attitude of discussion and non-confrontation appeared to prevail through the early weeks of the extraordinary events there. The horror of the tragedy is that it has only been in the past few days that such profound unwisdom has seized of the minds of those who govern China.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, grave though the present
42
situation is, it would be the greatest mistake to take any hasty steps towards changing the nationality law? Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that we have a number of years before the transfer of power in which it is quite possible that the situation will improve, as we all hope it will? Will he accept that the worst possible action would be to make concessions that would ultimately prove to be unsustainable?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend draws attention to the most important point about that most important argument. We cannot and should not engage in prospective changes in the law upon the footing that they might never need to be implemented. We have to look at the matter in a long perspective with the wisdom that my right hon. Friend has suggested.
Mr. David Winnick: Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) should we not first pay particular tribute to all those who have demonstrated continuously, day and night, in the capital of China and in other cities for basic human rights? As we all know, to demonstrate under a dictatorship takes tremendous courage. Is it not a fact that foreign correspondents were constantly asked if the countries from which they came supported what the demonstrators were trying to do? On reflection, perhaps the Foreign Secretary will agree that the democracies—not only that of our country but other democracies—could have spoken out before the bloodshed started over the weekend.
Are there not some people in the Chinese leadership —perhaps, the person who was general secretary of the Communist party until a few days ago, and his predecessor, whose death started the demonstrations, and in the Chinese Communist party at senior levels—who recognise that, just as in eastern Europe and Soviet Union change had to come, so it has to come in China? Stalinism is dead, and all the bullets and all the terror in the world cannot keep Stalinism going.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact, as I have already emphasised, that certainly there are voices, and voices at a high level, in the Chinese Government of sanity, democracy and of belief in the kind of standards in which we believe. We must regret the passing of some of those voices, and continue to express the hope that those who remain will prevail in the immense struggles that are no doubt now taking place.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the British people, having watched step by step the enactment of a crime without a name against humanity and liberty in China, are confused, if not infuriated, by the somewhat nonchalant response of the Government and even more of the Opposition, who, had it been a European Government doing something on an infinitesimally smaller scale, would have been up in arms and on the streets? Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that in the meantime it is extraordinary that the Chinese Government should remain a permanent member of the Security Council, which is the alleged protector of human rights?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend rightly expresses his grave dismay of what has been taking place. However, I must say in the light of his judgment, that I do

43
not regard him as a very well qualified judge of nonchalance. Neither the Government nor, if I may say so, the Opposition, have been disposed to treat the events of recent days with anything other than the utmost seriousness.
Mr. Keith Vaz: What steps is the British embassy in Beijing taking to contact those British citizens who are resident outside the capital? I have a constituent, a Miss Elaine Sweeney, who is a teacher in the Situhan province in Chengdu. Her parents have been trying to contact her for the past week. I telephoned the Private Office of the Foreign Secretary at the weekend, and, although his official was very helpful and took down the details, the official did not know where the Situhan province was. Will the Foreign Secretary consider allocating additional staff to his Private Office and publishing an inquiry telephone number so that relatives can contact people readily?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the courtesy of the person to whom he spoke. I apologise for the lack of extensive geographical knowledge, which is understandable in the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me any further details, of course I shall take account of them. The embassy and our consulate in Shanghai are making every possible effort to contact all the known British subjects within China. Almost 500 of the 860 British subjects in China are in Peking and in Shanghai. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's particular suggestions for more expeditious handling of any other inquiries.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in spite of our sympathy and concern, our principal obligation is to the people of this country? Does he recognise that the last two major immigrations into this country were not widely welcomed by the indigenous population? Does he agree that if his flexibility led to another major immigration into this country, it would be widely resented and would damage race relations here?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that factor. That is why in my statement I drew attention to the immense difficulty of contemplating a massive new immigration commitment of the kind involved in any fundamental change. My hon. Friend has underlined the importance of his warning in other contexts as well.
Mr. Frank Field: Does not hindsight teach that the House was wrong to seek an agreement with China on the future of Hong Kong? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House about the Government's fallback position should the changes in the Chinese Government which he has outlined not occur? Will he open international negotiations so that Hong Kong can gain the protection of United Nations trusteeship when it ceases to be a British territory, should the people of Hong Kong wish that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that, unusually, the hon. Gentleman is drawing the wrong conclusions from hindsight. As I have said already, it would not make sense to ignore the historical and geographical realities that are
44
implicit in the fact that 92 per cent. of the territory reverts to China in 1997. Any viable future for Hong Kong must be based on co-operation and co-existence with China, not on confrontation. Any attempt to design some alternative to that, dependent upon the goodwill of almost any organisation that the hon. Gentleman cares to name, would be of little, if any, value in the absence of the right relationship with China. That is why I have no doubt about the wisdom of arriving at the joint declaration. I have no doubt about the importance of underlining its significance for the future. Our first task is to restore the substance and confidence that can be placed in it.
Mr. James Couchman: Given China's tendency to isolate itself when it goes through one of these great upheavals, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) mentioned, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will maintain relations with the People's Republic at as high a level as possible during these difficult times so that the actions of the British Government in no sense catalyse such a turning inward? Will my right hon. and learned Friend suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that at the earliest possible date—certainly before the House rises for the summer recess—a suitable day should be set aside for a debate on Hong Kong?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall draw my hon. Friend's last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. In any event, such a debate was in prospect, given the timetable of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
My hon. Friend's first point is important also. Nothing that we do would be directed towards precipitating any increase in the isolation of the People's Republic of China. That is why we are maintaining our embassy there and other links of the kind suggested by the Opposition. That is why I shall seek any sensible opportunity that presents itself to communicate to those in authority in Peking our anxieties and wishes for the future.
Mr. Pat Wall: The Foreign Secretary may recall that a year ago I raised with him my opposition to the Basic Law, as it was then put forward, and its lack of provision for democratic elections in Hong Kong. Would not the best tribute to those students and workers who died in the killing streets and squares of Beijing be to announce universal suffrage in Hong Kong immediately, and the holding of elections this year? Is it not tragic that these events have had to occur before the idea of universal suffrage in Hong Kong has been raised? I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that what is taking place is a crime against humanity and—speaking as a lifelong anti-Stalinist—a crime against the ideas of Socialism, which comes ill from those in China who claim to defend the Socialist system.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall refrain from making any of the political points that might be made in the face of the hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. I confess that I do not have instant recall of his attitude to these matters 12 months ago. I repeat: we have sought throughout, and will continue, to introduce arrangements for government in Hong Kong along the lines that command the widest possible support in the territory.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, now that the decrepit leadership of the People's Republic of China has murdered its way to the history books, whatever leadership emerges may welcome faster moves by my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government towards some elements of democracy in Hong Kong? Does he agree that the leaders may welcome it, first, so that they can make a success of the takeover of Hong Kong and, secondly, so that they can be seen by the world to be leading a country in a more decent way than the people from whom they took it over?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend may well be right, and one must hope so.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that those students and workers who died in their thousands when demonstrating against corruption, bribery, nepotism, the black market and the bureaucratic, Stalinist, one-party dictatorship that rules almost a third of mankind could have expected a little more praise for their heroism, bravery and self-sacrifice? Why does he not declare clear support for the political revolution which is still unfolding in China and honour the martyrs of Tiananmen square by declaring this country's full support for a Socialist workers' democracy in China and for self-determination, free elections and full democracy in Hong Kong?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As always, the hon. Gentleman brings a unique vision to bear on these matters. In the eyes of the great majority of hon. Members and of the world, the heroism of the people to whom he has rightly paid tribute was exercised in revolt against the logical consequences of the most Socialist country in the world.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in these twilight years of British power in Hong Kong, there will be a need for enlightened and good public servants who are Hong Kong citizens? Does he therefore agree that, at the very least, those who are willing to serve for the next nine years should be given an understanding that, should the same kind of Government prevail, they will be treated properly, mercifully and humanely by the British people and the British Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Those factors are among those that need to be taken into account in appropriate circurnstances under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is not one of the key factors that will ensure that the students and workers have not died in vain the tremendous professional skill of the broadcasters, especially the television journalists, who brought us moving pictures of what happened? Given the unfortunate comments that some of the Foreign Secretary's right hon. Friends have made in the past, will he take this opportunity in particular to congratulate by name Kate Adie, who brought to reporting the facts from China the same standards of integrity and courage that she showed in Tripoli?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman talk to the Home Secretary about his plans for broadcasting? Some people fear that, if the present plans go ahead, the quality of the news coverage by British television and broadcasting crews will decline and be threatened. That will be a very bad day for this country.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even with the most liberal application of the rules of the House, discussion by me at this stage about the future of British broadcasting policy would be testing the patience of the House a little far.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: A moment or two ago a Conservative Member warned the Foreign Secretary of the likelihood, if these dreadful circumstances continue, of a huge number of refugees flooding into Hong Kong. What if refugees seek to leave China by way of the sea? What advice has been given to captains of British ships sailing in those waters, about dealing with such refugees? No doubt, their humanitarianism would prompt them to pick up such refugees but where would they be put ashore?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: One must hope that the matter does not escalate on anything like that scale. At the moment, the disturbances, which are grave, have been largely, though not completely, confined to the capital of Peking. Were circumstances to develop as the hon. Gentleman has in mind, sea captains have their own criteria and standards that they apply in similar circumstances.

Passports
5.11 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20 for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely
"the crisis in the passport office."
Last week, the patience of the long-suffering staff in the passport offices across the country finally snapped. Before the action, persistent underfunding and management incompetence had led to a backlog of half a million passport applications. That was exacerbated by the applications made in bulk by private agencies which receive preferential treatment. The six offices have had application backlogs of up to 12 weeks. The action started in Liverpool on 30 May, after a secret ballot produced a vote of 87 to 2. Workers said frankly that enough was enough.
The trade unions in the Home Office, principally the Civil and Public Services Association and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, submitted a claim for 326 extra staff on 24 June 1988. One year later, there are no extra permanent jobs and no improvements in computer systems, despite sources in the management of the passport office saying that both the hardware and software were not up to the job.
On 23 November, 1 tabled early-day motion 39 and predicted that the increase of more than one million applications since 1979 to a current figure of 2·6 million, which had already led to intolerable delays, backlogs of passengers and holidaymakers and immeasurable pressure being placed on staff, would not be ameliorated by the
48
abuse of casual labour, by overtime or individual work measurement. That early-day motion predicted the chaos which is now ensuing. That warning of six months ago was ignored.
Last week, the National Audit Office issued a report criticising the passport department for its lack of planning and failure to predict the level of applications, or take corrective action on staffing early enough. That is an indictment of the management of the Home Office and a vindication of the trade unions' position.
The crisis is also an indictment of the Government's policy of reducing civil servants and public spending and preparing, through executive agency status, the privatisation of the passport service. Privatisation is irrelevant to the need for more resources to ease the pressures on staff and the public. When negotiations resume tomorrow, an independent review of the computer system, better facilities for staff and public and the full 326 increase in staffing levels are needed. The Government know what the staff and the public want and it is about time that they delivered it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the crisis in the passport office."
As the House knows, I have to take into account the requirements of the order and announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Dog Registration
5.15 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for a dog registration scheme."
The House will have been appalled by the number of savage attacks by Rottweiler dogs on innocent people, including young children, in recent weeks. The matter is urgent because since this April, seven people have been savagely mauled by Rottweiler dogs.
The first victim was Kelly Leech, a little girl of II years who died after a horrifying attack by a pair of that breed, which she was taking for a walk. Today's newspapers report yet another assault by a Rottweiler. This latest victim was a man from Luton who needed stitches to his arm. The specific list of vicious calamities makes sickening reading. On 29 May, 5-year-old Jamie Walker from Birmingham was attacked by three Rottweilers and needed 21 stitches. Two days later on May 31, 75-year-old grandmother Mrs. Nellie Williams and her dog were attacked by a Rottweiler while out for a stroll in a Leicester park. The same day a man was bitten by a Rottweiler on Merseyside when he went to pat the dog. Last week a six-month-old baby, Andrew Little, was attacked in his cot by his grandparents' Rottweiler, and another man needed stitches after an attack in Manchester. Today, we have the latest grim instalment of that catalogue of injuries.
Shortly before the recess, I wrote to the Leader of the House who refused to make available Government time to debate dog registration. Given the growing list of tragic attacks, the Government must act now and make time available for an urgent debate on the matter. It is an urgent issue and the Government's unwillingness to act makes it
50
more so. There are more than 500,000 dogs roaming loose in Britain every day. A total of 250,000 dog bites are treated in hopitals each year at a cost of £17 million to the NHS. Stray dogs cause 50,000 road accidents a year, and 10,000 livestock are attacked by dogs, leading to insurance claims of about £1 million a year.
We must find a solution to the problem. First, every dog should have an electronically implanted permanent identification code, or a tattoo, so that it and its owner can be identified. That would, at least, enable a lost dog and its owner to be reunited, and an irresponsible owner to be caught. Rottweilers are proving to be a menace to innocent people. The young and the frail are particularly at the mercy of these animals which have shown that they are capable of turning from family pet to barbarous creature in an instant.
Secondly, a properly funded dog warden scheme is needed to enforce the system, catch the strays and educate dog owners. The Government's unwillingness to act does not match up to public expectations, and I hope that they will act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for a dog registration scheme."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, my sole duty under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether the matter should be given priority over business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that I must give the same answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I genuinely apologise for raising a point of order on such a busy day but, of course, if it is not raised today, the first opportunity, I shall be unable to raise it in future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) raised a point of order on 26 May with Mr. Deputy Speaker which appears in Hansard at columns 1259 and 1260. He referred to a story that had been reported on BBC television the previous evening, 25 May, alleging the connection between the expulsion of Soviet agents from the United Kingdom and possible blackmail attempts on Labour Members.
The actual signing-off headline of the end of the television bulletin said:
"Senior British sources have been giving reasons for the expulsion of Russian spies, who were believed to be involved with middle east terrorists and blackmailing Labour MPs."
The word "possible" had disappeared when the headline was given at the end of the BBC television news. In his point of order, my right hon. Friend said that he had contacted the Foreign Secretary's Office that morning before raising his point of order, but officials there were completely unable to clarify the position.
The following day, the Foreign Secretary responded to a letter from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition making it perfectly clear that Labour Members were not, in any way, associated with the activities for which Soviet diplomats had been expelled from the United Kingdom. No denial had been made before my right hon. Friend wrote to the Foreign Secretary. The Government knew that the allegations were a tissue of lies and it is surprising that absolutely no statement and no denial was made before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Foreign Secretary who, I agree, responded immediately.
I understand that it is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker: I want to make that quite clear.[Interruption.] I am on a point of order. Whether the Minister of State, to whom I have given notice of this was misunderstood or misrepresented by the BBC correspondent is of no concern to you, Mr. Speaker, or for that matter to me; I am not interested in that. My point of order simply concerns whether it is right for hon. Members to be subject to baseless allegations, whether or not such lies—and they were lies—originated within the Government.
Although you are not responsible for statements, Mr. Speaker, I beg you to consider the matter. A large number of hon. Members—all belonging to one party—were subject to baseless allegations which the Government knew to be a tissue of lies. Would it not be right and appropriate for the Minister concerned—who is in the Chamber and to whom I have given notice, and who has denied responsibility—to make a statement to the House to clarify the position and to be questioned by hon. Members? He has a duty and responsibility to the House, as a Member of Parliament. He should stand up and make his position clear.
Mr. Speaker: Of course I deprecate any allegations made against any hon. Member of the House, from whatever quarter. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about is a report on the BBC. That is not a matter for me, and I do not think that I can deal with it.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely accept that what was said on the BBC is not directly a matter for you. What is a matter for you is, perhaps, to let the House know whether the Minister who, apparently inadvertently, may have been responsible for the report that was broadcast as a result of a lunchtime conversation with a BBC journalist —as he is present and received warning that the matter was to be raised—will now be honourable enough to ask to be allowed to make a personal statement making clear to the House what he has apparently said outside it.
Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an astonishing proposition that the Government should make a statement every time allegations are made about members of the Opposition? It is a common experience for all of us to hear allegations against Opposition Members, and indeed against some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Minister, who is in his place, has behaved with complete honour throughout. He issued a full statement on 2 June. The matter was raised in the House on 26 May, the day on which we rose for the recess. Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is living up to his reputation—that of being, in the words of a former leader of the Labour party, the silliest man in the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not possible for me to comment on what has been said. I think that we must move on.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. There is nothing that I can do about the matter. I cannot be held responsible for conversations with members of the BBC or the press: it is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You and I were parliamentary colleagues of a Northumberland miner by the name of Will Owen: you may remember him. Will Owen was broken by circumstances which—I choose my words very carefully —turned out subsequently to be rather different from what had been alleged at the time. Will Owen died a broken and, some would say, a disgraced man. I think that all of us, particularly Ministers, must be very careful indeed. The Minister of State probably did not know Will Owen, but he was a friend of mine and of some Conservative Members who privately felt as strongly as I did.
The Minister may recollect that in the case of Will Owen an injustice may have been done. I think that Ministers who were not here during Will Owen's time ought to be very careful about being reported on the subject of events of which they may not have first-hand knowledge. In a sense, Mr. Speaker, you are the custodian of departed colleagues as well. I think that for the protection of one of those colleagues you should at least invite the Minister to make some kind of statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should all be extremely careful about what we say both inside and outside the House.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to a written answer given today by the Minister of State, Home Office about the introduction of visa requirements for people coming to this country from Turkey.

53
On 26 May there was an Adjournment debate on the position facing Kurdish asylum-seekers. I raised a number of questions with the Minister, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). At no stage in his lengthy reply did the Minister of State say that he had already written to the Turkish Government seeking to lift the provisions of the 1960 agreement between Britain and Turkey to the effect that visas would not be required. He sent the letter to the Turkish Government on 23 May. It is now revealed, on our first day back after a short recess, that the Government are indeed seeking to impose visa restrictions from 23 June on people visiting this country from Turkey. The implications are clearly very serious. Anyone seeking political asylum from Turkey will not be able to come here, as a visa will not be made available. If they try to come here, the airline or other carrier that has brought them can be fined £1,000.
This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It should not creep out in a parliamentary answer; it ought to be the subject of a statement from the Home Secretary so that he can be questioned and opportunities for debate can be provided. I am sure that you agree that it is a serious matter, and we look to you to provide some facility for us to question the Government about their behaviour and, indeed, their treatment of the House in not revealing the information on 26 May, as they could have.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am sure that it has been heard by those on the Government Front Bench. I have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to raise the matter, and no doubt he will have other opportunities.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not take any more points of order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and we have a busy day ahead of us.
Mr. Winnick: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has had a very good run this afternoon.

BILL PRESENTED
  ENVIRONMENTAL CHARTER
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. A. J. Beith and Mrs. Ray Michie, presented a Bill to establish local authority ecology working groups for the purpose of adopting an environmental charter to carry out specific measures to protect and enhance the quality of the natural environment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Sale and Purchase and Share Subscription Agreements) (Goods) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle]

Agriculture (Control of Nitrates)
5.27 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the use of nitrogenous fertilisers.
In the late 17th century the satirist Jonathan Swift observed that
"whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together."
I fear that the public perception of politicians may not have changed much in the intervening centuries, but the role of farmers has changed considerably, particularly during the past decade.
As a farmer's son, I would not wish to make any proposals that would penalise agriculture, which is Britain's largest and most successful industry. We can, however, assume that there is a need to curb agricultural production. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) have both introduced packages of measures with that intention. They would, I believe, be the first to pay tribute to the farming community—3 per cent. of our population who produce some 85 per cent. of our temperate foodstuffs and export a substantial amount of food each year.
Ideally, we should try to control production in a way that does not disadvantage farmers or their incomes, and combine it with the environmental advantages that would flow from less intensive farming methods. To date, we have tried controlling production both by quotas on individual commodities and by price restraint. But quotas that deal with one commodity in isolation, such as milk, have a major flaw—because if a farmer cannot produce that commodity, he must produce something else There is then a greater and growing risk of oversupply of other foodstuffs.
Equally, mild price restraint results in greater production because that is the natural reaction of farmers who wish to preserve their living standards. Above all, there is the dreadful policy of food intervention buying and storage, thereby converting first-quality products into third-quality products, which are sold off at rock bottom prices to those living under Socialist Administrations who know no better and who can afford no better.
The National Economic Development Office's 1987 report entitled "Land Use in the 1990s" suggests that the United Kingdom needs to shed 1·5 million productive hectares or 14 per cent. of our land area by the mid-1990s. However, there is little point taking 14 per cent. of land out of production if the remaining 86 per cent. will be increasingly intensively farmed.
For all those reasons, now is the time to consider supply side control. If we are serious about controlling production, we must look at the means of production. I am pleased to note that the National Farmers Union is seriously considering these suggestions. The means of production are almost wholly good. They include better plant breeding, modern machinery, skilled labour, and most pesticides and fertilisers. However, we must carefully examine the dramatic increase in the use of nitrogenous

55
fertilisers; that is, inorganic nitrogen. I quote from the bible on that issue, which is the 1962 edition of "Fream's Elements of Agriculture". It states that
"the effects of nitrogen-containing manures upon plant growth are amongst the most spectacular which can be achieved by manuring, for nitrogen is the food material which is especially responsible for growth, particularly of foliage and stems."
If that was evident in 1962, it is doubly so in 1989 when the reduction in the farm labour force and modern machinery make it more convenient for farmers to apply large quantities of artificial fertilisers than to apply bulky farmyard manure to fields in the traditional and labour-intensive way.
The main contributor to increased production of foodstuffs is nitrogen, which no longer arrives in half-hundredweight bags but usually in 1 tonne sacks. With land valued at about £2,000 per acre, obviously it is to the farmer's advantage to apply additional nitrogen—just 6 lb per hundredweight—substantially to increase plant growth and by that his crop yields.
My Bill provides for the restriction of nitrogen application; that is, a limited number of units per acre with no transfers between farmers but a subsidy to those who do not take up their full allocation. I have already stated that the proposals are advantageous to the farming community, the countryside and the environment. The advantages to farmers are as follows. First, controlling production on a European-wide basis means that supply and demand will be better balanced, which must be in the long-term interests of the industry. Secondly, the farmer will again be able to choose which enterprises best suit his or her farm and pocket. Farmers will be free to adapt to changing circumstances as they see fit.
Thirdly, the proposals favour extensive rather than intensive farming systems, and will inconvenience mainly those who use the largest amounts of nitrogen—especially continuous grain and intensive dairy farmers, who collectively are the worst culprits in respect of overproduction of agricultural products. Even they can easily adapt. The intensive dairy farmer, for example, could purchase additional grass keep in the neighbourhood, which is a logical form of extensification. Finally, my proposals will encourage crop rotations, which are good for the land. Most farmers realise that they are merely custodians of the land for their lifetimes and that the land should always be left in good heart.
The Bill would also bring benefits to the land in general. Nitrogen encourages plant growth, and the fastest growing
56
plants are most encouraged. It logically follows that wild or slow-growing plants become rare where nitrogen is frequently and heavily applied.
An even more topical aspect is the nitrate level in water courses. Nitrate-sensitive areas have already been proposed. The Rothamstead experimental station's aptly entitled report "Keeping the Balance" points out that the amount of nitrogen applied is only one of many factors affecting nitrogen levels in our water supplies and that particular care should be exercised when applications of fertiliser are made in the autumn, for example, when rainfall levels exceed those of evaporation. However, the application rate is a factor, and the public are rightly concerned that high nitrate levels in water supplies can be cancer-inducing—though I understand that that remains to be proved.
An interesting article in The Times on 24 November 1988 observed that to treat water intended for drinking in order to remove nitrates would impose unacceptably high costs on the water authorities, which I accept. Prevention is better than a cure, and in most cases the best long-term solution must be to reduce the quantities of nitrates that reach surface and ground water supplies by changing agricultural practices, so that the need for treatment will not arise.
For all those reasons, nitrates should be controlled. We may then be able to do away with the common agricultural policy, and all the fraud, intervention and food storage schemes that together cost far more than any subsidies to farmers. An excellent leader in The Daily Telegraph on 13 May headed "Yoke them together" noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment requires less intensive farming methods for the benefit of the environment, and that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seeks to curb food surpluses. Those aims are mutually compatible, and my Bill should please both my right hon. Friends.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. David Curry, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Greg Knight, and Mr. Nicholas Bennett.

Agriculture (Control of Nitrates)
  AGRICULTURE (CONTROL OF NITRATES)
  Mr. Roger Knapman accordingly presented a Bill to restrict the use of nitrogenous fertilisers: And the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 7 June, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]
Orders of the Day

  Employment Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you kindly indicate why the two new clauses tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) were not selected. They were designed to close loopholes in earlier employment legislation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make the speech that he might have made had his clauses been selected. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he complains that the clauses he tabled were not selected by Mr. Speaker. Is that the case?
  Mr. Riddick: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not required to give reasons for the non-selection of amendments.
  Mr. Riddick: I entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I may point out that the purpose of the Bill, apart from amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, is to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Chair is not required to give explanations for the non-selection of amendments. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate why his clauses were not selected.

  Employment Bill
    New Clause 12

      DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF AGE
      `It shall he unlawful for any person to offer employment at an establishment in the United Kingdom which may discriminate against any person on the grounds that he is older or younger than any other person or persons in:

      (a) any advertisement or other arrangement made to notify prospective employees, or

      (b) the methods of determining who should be offered employment, or

      (c) the terms and conditions on which employment is offered, or

      (d) refusing to offer employment.'.

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael Meacher rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I point out to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that, as his name is not among those associated with new clause 12, it must be moved formally by an hon. Member who is.
      Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to debate new clause 13—Discrimination on grounds of unemployment—
      58
      `It shall be unlawful for any person to offer employment at an establishment in the United Kingdom which may discriminate against any person because of current or previous periods of unemployment by:

      (a) the methods of determining who should be offered employment, or

      (b) the terms and conditions on which employment is offered, or

      (c) refusing to offer employment.'.

      Mr. Meacher: Age discrimination, which is the topic of new clause 12, is potentially the most wide-ranging form of discrimination in employment. It could affect everyone at some time in their lives. It is obviously in direct defiance of the principle of equality of opportunity which was defined by the Equal Opportunities Commission as follows:
      "individuals should be judged as individuals according to their merits and not on the basis of a characteristic ascribed to them arbitrarily because they are members of a group".
      That definition would commend itself to both sides of the House and it is clearly breached by discrimination on grounds of age.
      There have been two private Members' Bills in Parliament this year to outlaw age discrimination. The Employment (Age Limits) Bill was introduced in the other place and the Employment Age Discrimination Bill was presented to the House by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). Neither is likely to succeed without Government support.
      The Government seem to have a schizophrenic view of the matter. On one hand, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said:
      "It is both irresponsible and unfair to discriminate without justification on the grounds of age."—[Official Report, 15 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 250.]
      The Opposition very much support that view. On the other hand, in their evidence to the Employment Select Committee on 7 December 1988, the Government refused to take action, stating as their reason:
      "it would be neither practical nor beneficial to legislate to prevent age discrimination in employment".
      Yet other countries do not take that view and have legislation to prohibit age discrimination.
      The United States Age Discrimination in Employment Act has existed for 22 years. That Act, as amended, prohibits age-based employment discrimination against individuals aged 40 and above. Under the Act., it is unlawful for employers to fail or refuse to hire, to dismiss or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such an individual's age It is also unlawful for employers to limit, segregate or classify an employee in any way that would deprive the employee of job opportunities or adversely affect employment status because of age. If that can be done in the United States, why can it not be done here?
      In Canada, since 1978, when the Canadian Human Rights Act came into effect, it has been unlawful to discriminate in employment on grounds of age. Unlike the American Act, there is no minimum age requirement—the Act prohibits discrimination against all ages.
      Furthermore, Britain is a founder member and signatory to the International Labour Organisation—I am well aware that the Government take a fairly flippant and nonchalant view of the ILO, but it is an important international authority. Its older workers recommendation states:
      "each member should, with the framework of national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for

      59
      workers, whatever their age … take measures for the prevention of discrimination in employment and occupation with regard to older workers".
      The problem of age discrimination is not a minor one. In its 1988 study, the EOC found that 27 per cent. of employers specified an age requirement or bar in their vacancy advertisements. In The Sunday Times, an average of one third—varying between 17 per cent. and 59 per cent. of all employers—made an age requirement during the sample period. In the Institute of Personnel Management's magazine, 24 per cent. specified an age requirement, although the institute's equal opportunities code specifically advises against age discrimination in employment.
      5.45 pm
      The most frequent age requirement is as low as 25 to 35 years. That is why it is so serious for older workers. Not many right hon. and hon. Members present in the House would qualify. The EOC found that one quarter of advertisements specified under 45 years while one fifth specified under 35 years and no fewer than 96 per cent. of all job advertisements which specified an age required a person under 45, while nearly two thirds of advertisements required someone under 35. In The Sunday Times, half of all advertisements specifying ages required someone under 35. In Nine to Five, a London magazine specialising in clerical, secretarial and administrative jobs, almost all advertisements were for people under 35. That is quite serious and arresting for job opportunities for older people.
      There are two other disturbing findings in current practice. First, the EOC found that even those employers who claim to be "equal opportunity employers" specified age bars in their advertisements. Secondly, after studying 150 equal opportunity statements, the EOC found that only one third covered age discrimination, although many included other non-statutory forms of discrimination such as class, employment status or sex. Therefore, age discrimination in job recruitment is extensive and unfair. There are many strong age stereotypes which, as we get older, it will no doubt give us some comfort to refute. MORI found that personnel directors and recruitment specialists believe that drive, ambition and health all decline with age, but the empirical evidence does not support those beliefs or other myths about older workers.
      A famous study by a researcher called Dr. Gee that was published last year found, first, that age-related declines in productivity, mental efficiency and reaction times are all small. Secondly, many of the small mental losses which occur can be and are compensated by experience. Thirdly, older workers are more satisfied with their job, are less likely to leave an organisation for another job, and have lower rates of absenteeism and accidents at work. Fourthly, there is considerable individual variation in age-related losses which implies that employers should look at differences in individuals rather than age groups. Research has again pointed strongly to the need for action to be taken.
      For those reasons, age discrimination, which is so unfair, creates angry and frustrated individuals who find overwhelming difficulty in getting job interviews because of age, and often despite successful interviews, have their applications ruled out on grounds of age. Once
      60
      unemployed, people's chance of getting a job decline with age, however unfair that might be. That is why it is so important to help them.
      Decreases in unemployment in the past two years show that the younger one is, the more likely one is to find a job. Although unemployment fell by 27 per cent. among the under-25s and by just over II per cent. among those aged 25 to 44 who had been unemployed for five years or more, it actually increased by 3 per cent. among those aged 45 or over in the past two years. That is very disturbing.
      Therefore, there are strong personal and individual reasons for supporting new clause 12. But there are other reasons.
      "Because of demographic trends, it is irresponsible to ignore the talents which older workers can contribute to the economy".
      I am glad that the Minister was nodding as I was quoting from his Department's evidence to the Employment Select Committee. I strongly agree with those words. As they come from his Department and he agrees with them, I hope that today he will state that he is prepared to take action. Perhaps not surprisingly, strong attempts are being made to use indirect means to prohibit age discrimination when direct means are not available. According to the code of practice of the Equal Opportunities Commission,
      "an unjustifiable age limit could constitute unlawful indirect discrimination"
      on the ground of sex.
      I shall give a further example from a number that have occurred recently to illustrate the problem. In Price v. the Civil Service Commission, Ms. Price, who was 36, claimed indirect sex discrimination because the executive officer's post that she had applied for was open only to people under 28. She argued that a considerably smaller proportion of women than men could comply with the age limit because more women were out of the labour market in their twenties having children. Significantly, the tribunal upheld her case.
      The statutory authorities are highly sympathetic to complaints about age discrimination in job recruitment. They are prepared to accept arguments based, if necessary, on other criteria to achieve that end. It would clearly be much better if the law openly and directly prohibited discrimination on the grounds of age, which is the purpose of new clause 12, which I strongly commend to the House.
      New clause 13 is designed to prevent discrimination against job applicants on the ground of long-term unemployment. I shall cite two surveys that illustrate the problem. The first was of 64 employers, which suggested that while only one in 10 employers would screen out newly unemployed people when recruiting, half would screen out those who had been out of work for a year or more. The second was a postal survey of 456 employers in four different local markets, which was followed up by case studies of 31 employers. It revealed that applicants were likely to be rejected simply because they were long-term unemployed people at least 50 per cent. of the time. The second survey meshes in closely with the conclusion of the first one. Smaller firms were significantly more likely to discriminate than larger ones. Interestingly, there was less discrimination against long-term unemployed people in Preston and Glasgow, where unemployment was more serious and many more jobless people had been out of work for a long time, than in Peterborough and Bournemouth, where unemployment was lower.

      61
      A further important finding was that people who had been out of work for a long time tended to use jobcentres or look in newspapers for vacancies and did not have access to specialised or informal job networks, whereby news of vacancies is spread by word of mouth, special notices or journals. We believe that this puts the focus for policy on the quality of information available to the employment service, which receives only about one third of all vacancies. In Sweden, employers are required by law to report nearly all vacancies to the employment services, which allows unemployed people a fairer crack of the whip at all the jobs going and gives the employment services better information about the pattern of vacancies in each local labour market so that it can plan more appropriate training programmes. We believe that that sensible system should be adopted here. The Labour party is committed to a high-quality employment service, and we intend to introduce such a system in Britain.
      With or without that change, we are deeply concerned that unemployment has reduced least in the past three years among those who have been unemployed the longest. We strongly believe that there is a role for the law in countering discrimination as well as a role for advice and training of employers to counter prejudice before the problem is overcome and long-term unemployed people, who, we all surely agree, are among the most disadvantaged people in this country, are able to break out of the social and economic trap. That is why new clause 13 is so important, and I strongly urge the Government to accept it.
      Mr. James Wallace: I give general support to the two new clauses.
      The recent report of the Select Committee on Employment about employment of the over-50s is useful. Its attention was drawn to the many disadvantages facing the over-50s, not least discrimination against them by people over 50. The report said that many people in public life and companies do not take on jobs of considerable responsibility until they are over 50. Paragraph 10 of the report graphically summed up the problem. It said:
      "Age discrimination could quickly wither away if those who have the power to determine employment policies in the private and public sectors bothered to look in the mirror. If they are not too old at 50 neither are others."
      There is a home truth in that graphic point.
      Hon. Members receive a number of applications for the posts that they advertise. With the best will in the world, it is difficult to overcome certain prejudices when one receives an application from someone aged 45 or 50. One wonders why the applicant is not developing a career structure with the firm that may have been employing him for a number of years. Such prejudice must be overcome.
      The suggestion involving employment services being required to ask employers whether an age limit is strictly necessary would go only so far in dealing with the problem. In reply, the Minister may find some technical problem with the drafting of the new clause. Nevertheless, the thrust behind it is appropriate, and only through some form of legislation will age discrimination be tackled.
      The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made a telling point when he said that people find out about many jobs only by word of mouth or by a notice being placed on a staff room, works canteen or company notice board. Many jobs are never brought to the attention of people who have been unemployed for a long time.
      62
      Long-term unemployed people are discriminated against by the attitudes of many employers when sifting through job applications. They think that if a person has been unemployed a long time he is by definition unemployable and do not offer him the opportunity to present himself at interview and prove his worth. A report of the Campaign for Work said:
      "To quote just one study of 250 long term unemployed people in Hull, 80 per cent. of the sample were actively looking for work; nearly half said they were willing to leave Hull if work was offered elsewhere and of those able to take full-time work more than half would be satisfied with take-home pay of less than £100 per week".
      It said that that was evidence of considerable motivation among those people.
      The fact that people have been unemployed for a long time does not mean that they have lost their motivation. Community programme managers, when there were such people, reported that long-term unemployed people were quickly motivated after only a short time at work. Tragically, many of them never get the opportunity to show their motivation and ability to work. Perhaps employers need to be educated about such innate prejudice by a campaign drawing to their attention the merit and worth of people who are older or have been unemployed for a long time. If such a campaign failed, the fall-back of some statutory powers is equally necessary.
      6 pm
      Mr. Frank Haynes: I did not expect to be called so early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are very kind.
      The Government have created the situation in which we find ourselves and that is why I support new clause 12. The Government have destroyed industry, and, in the wake of that, they have destroyed jobs. I come from a coal-mining area where pits have been closed willy-nilly and people have been put on the dole at the age of 40 and younger, yet job advertisements in the newspapers often have an age limit. That is a shocking state of affairs and the Government must wake up to the fact that they have a responsibility to such people.
      I can see that the Minister is listening to what I am saying, just as he listened in Committee when I told him about the situation that the Government had created.. We come here to represent our constituents and to tell the Government about the position in our constituencies. What is happening in my constituency is also happening elsewhere, yet the Government try to create jobs by means of low wages.
      Many of my constituents want a job but cannot get one. The pits have been closed and they have not been replaced with industry to create new jobs. We have appealed to the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Trade and Industry to use the land that results from a pit closure to give an incentive to industrialists to replace the jobs lost, but they do not want to know. Instead, they blame British Coal, saying that it wants to sell the land for something else. It is time that they put their heads together—or time that we knocked them together—and did something.
      The Government should tell British Coal in no uncertain terms what to do with such land to create jobs for people who need them, having been thrown on the dole by the closure of industries resulting from the Government's policies. It is time that the Government woke up and did something. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 12. There should be no

      63
      discrimination against any person on the ground of age. The Government have created this position and it is time that they put things right in the interests of those whom they too are supposed to be representing.
      Mr. Greville Janner: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is the best possible living argument for the fact that nobody should be discriminated against on the ground of age. It is only in the past few years, in the flowering of his youth, that his voice has developed to its full extent and he has been able to put forward his case with such restraint.
      My late father, who some of my hon. Friends will remember, reached his maturity only when he gave up his seat at the age of 78 and went to another place so that I might succeed him. Now that I too am beginning to reach maturity, I recognise the usefulness and importance of the new clause.
      I notice that hon. Members on the Government Front Benches have visibly aged since the time that they took up their monstrous task of destroying the employment security of the British people and, in particular, of ruining the law that protects people at work. When they took office they were bright, young and fresh and they were brought in for that reason. We are told that in the coming reshuffle they will be replaced by younger people.
      I respectfully suggest that, as we grow older, there are fewer and fewer grounds for accepting discrimination. People should be accepted for what they are and for what they can do, irrespective of sex, race or trade union affiliation, all of which are protected in the sense that it is unlawful to discriminate on those grounds. They should also be protected here, as they are in the United States and Canada, from discrimination on the ground of age.
      Discrimination is essential to all those who select for employment or promotion, for training or even for dismissal, but it must be discrimination lawfully exercised. I sit on the Select Committee for Employment and the report, which has been rightly referred to, shows how widespread sex discrimination has become in Britain. It also shows that it is not based on logic or sense. New clause 12 would enable us to get rid of that discrimination as and when we should.
      The Select Committee heard evidence of what is happening in Britain. People are retiring earlier and acquiring what one witness called a portfolio of jobs, some paid and some unpaid. In many cases, they are working harder after they have retired than they did before, but it is difficult for them to be accepted for what they are when they are forced out of their jobs by early redundancy when they are older than 35. Today, early retirement in some jobs is beginning at 45 or 52.
      It is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of age and I ask Ministers, in their own interests as well as in the interests of others, to reconsider any opposition to the new clause. The present system is daft. Men are forced to remain at work until they are 65 to obtain a state pension. People are forced out of work when they should not be and they are not permitted to compete on an equal basis because of their age. Discrimination on the grounds of age should be unlawful and this excellent new clause will ban it. I hope that the Government will support it.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Those hon. Members who have spoken have correctly stated that the problem is one of discrimination against older people on the ground of age. However new clause 12 says that there should not be discrimination against any person on the grounds that he is older or younger. In some cases young people could be discriminated against because of a particular age bar. That element of new clause 12 may hold some appeal for the Government with their particular philosophy and the idea that there are natural whizz kids around.
      However, the serious problem is the one that exists for older people. I am particularly aware of that problem, having acted as a director for access courses. People who study part-time on access courses and then enter full-time education might be out of the job market for a long time. They might spend at least two or three years in part-time education and then, depending which avenue they choose, they might go to university for three years or for five years if they have to attend a preparatory college course.
      There are masses of people with great talent and the Government are supposed to be interested in assisting access courses. However, the student loan scheme does nothing to assist them. After such training many people will be able to come back into the job market having acquired new skills in a society that is increasingly subject to technological change which requires new skills. Those people will be older and should not be discriminated against for their own sakes and for the sake of society generally.
      Clause 8 will lead to even more discrimination, giving us further grounds for saying that new clauses 12 and 13 are important. They cannot prevent the harmful consequences of the Bill, they can make some minor adjustments to try to improve a desperate situation. For example, measures in clause 8 will lead to more young people being employed and exploited which will in turn affect older people. If we remove the protections which prevent young people from working more than 48 hours a week and allow them to work on Sundays without a day in lieu and to be pushed on to night shifts and remove statutory meal breaks, young people can be considerably exploited by ruthless employers and can be used instead of older skilled people. That can result in youngsters being used to undermine the conditions and wages of older workers.
      The Government hold the peculiar view that the decline in the birth rate, leading to fewer youngsters being in the employment market in years to come, will result in young workers having a fantastic bargaining position which will enable them to secure good wages and conditions. Were that to happen, it would have an impact on older workers, because younger workers would be given jobs in preference, especially in view of the changed conditions of which I spoke.
      The way in which the YTS has operated makes it clear that schemes of that kind can be used by the Government to exploit young people and thereby undermine the negotiating power of older workers. For all those reasons, the proposed new clauses should be adopted, because they would at least slightly improve an otherwise terrible Bill.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I and—the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) will be pleased to hear—my youthful ministerial colleagues, have some

      65
      sympathy with the Opposition's intention in tabling the new clauses, which seek to outlaw discrimination by potential employers on the grounds of a person's age or because he or she is unemployed. The Government firmly believe that employers should recognise the valuable resource represented by applicants, whatever their age or history of unemployment.
      It can clearly be wasteful for employers to refuse to consider applicants solely because they have or have not reached a certain age, or because they are unemployed. This is a message we have frequently sought to get across to employers—for example, in our Department's recent White Paper "Employment for the 1990s".
      There are barriers of both prejudice and lack of knowledge to overcome. We believe that the best way to overcome these barriers is not by legislation but by encouraging and persuading employers to amend their personnel policies where necessary.
      When taking details of vacancies, jobcentres try to persuade employers not to impose often arbitrary and usually unnecessary and pointless age restrictions. That has been longstanding policy, but instructions were strengthened in January of this year to ensure that where an employer insists on an age restriction, the employment service seeks to persuade him to treat it as a preference rather than an absolute requirement. The service will also contact an employer if a recruit becomes available who is suitable in all respects other than age.
      Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the efforts which the Department makes in those respects have been failing, are failing and that there is no reason to suppose that they will not continue to fail?
      Mr. Lee: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. As I shall show, increasingly employers who discriminate are realising the error of their ways, and the changing labour market profile and demographic changes will push them even more in the direction that we wish them to go.
      Employers are showing increasing flexibility in this area. For example, Tesco's is already actively recruiting older workers to fill vacancies, and British Telecom is considering taking on and training older recruits to meet its need for skilled engineering staff. A substantial investment is also being made to help older unemployed people get jobs. Longer-term unemployed people up to the age of 60 are able to obtain guidance on ways back to work through the restart programme.
      The employment training programme is open to people up to the age of 60 and offers unemployed older workers with out-of-date skills the opportunity to retrain through training packages tailored to their individual needs. Through offering work experience, it also allows them to show prospective employers their abilities.
      The job club programme can also offer help to unemployed older workers through training them in how best to present themselves to prospective employers and how to make effective speculative approaches to employers who have not advertised vacancies.
      For unemployed people who wish to become self-employed, the enterprise allowance scheme is available up to the age of 64. We have recently announced that a new part-time jobstart scheme for the over 50s is to be piloted in four areas. This will help unemployed older
      66
      people to get back into the job market by offering them an allowance of £20 a week if they take a part-time job earning up to £2·57 a hour.
      The employment service is also taking practical steps through several initiatives to encourage employers to give more consideration to unemployed people in general. For example, in Greenwich the service is carrying out preliminary interviews for vacancies with Texas Homecare. In exchange, Texas has guaranteed to fill half of its vacancies from people who have been unemployed for six months or more. In other areas, companies have run mock interviews at jobclubs which have resulted in members finding jobs with the companies.
      6.15 pm
      We are taking further positive steps in that area. As hon. Members will know, our Department has recently announced the introduction of the job interview guarantee scheme for unemployed inner-city residents. It will initially be offered in 20 inner-city areas and will be available later this month. It will help not only to prepare long-term unemployed people to re-enter work and increase their opportunities to do so, but to break down employer reticence in considering longer-term unemployed people for such vacancies. It will link the assistance already offered by job clubs and the employment service with new measures. These will include a job preparation course, similar to the current restart course model, but with employers involved in tailoring the course content to meet their specific needs.
      "Work trials" will offer unemployed people the chance to demonstrate for a short period their ability to undertake a job with a potential employer while they remain on benefit, allowing employers to reassure themselves about employing people who have been out of work for some time. In return for those services, employers will agree to interview all long-term unemployed people submitted in that way.
      It is clear—and ultimately this is far more effective than the new clauses—that demographic trends will put real pressure on employers to consider a much wider range of applicants than they might do at present. Employers will need to give greater consideration to older workers and to unemployed people for their vacancies.
      As I have explained, some employers are already taking a sensible lead in doing that. Indeed, it is obvious that that is already happening, as the record falls in unemployment over the last 33 months testify. Employers who fail to improve their personnel practices will learn the hard way that it is in their own economic interests to ensure that they heed the messages that the Government are putting over on these issues.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 15

      EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED PERSONS
      '.—(1) Section 10(2) of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 shall be amended as follows—
      (2) In paragraph (a) the words ", which shall not be less than 3%," shall be inserted after the words "a standard percentage".'.—[Mr. Wareing.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time the following:
      New clause 16—Proceedings under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944—
      '. —(1) Section 19 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 shall be amended as follows—
      (2) Subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.
      (3) In subsection (2) the words "brought by the Minister" shall be inserted after "proceedings for an offence under this Act".'.
      New clause 17—Discrimination on grounds of disability—
      'It shall be unlawful for any person to offer employment at an establishment in the United Kingdom which may unreasonably discriminate against any person on the grounds that they are disabled in—

      (a) any advertisement or other arrangement made to notify prospective employees, or

      (b) the methods of determining who shall be offered employment, or

      (c) the terms and conditions on which employment is offered, or

      (d) refusing to offer employment.'

      Mr. Wareing: The new clause would enshrine in an Act of Parliament for the first time the 3 per cent. figure often accepted as the quota for disabled people as a percentage of a work force. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 mentions only "a standard percentage". That was determined to be 2 per cent. by a statutory rule and order in 1945 and to be 3 per cent. by the Disabled Persons (Standard Percentage) Order No. 1258 of 25 July 1946.
      The new clause gives the Government an opportunity to address the problem. Current rumours are giving great concern to organisations representing disabled people and require an answer, for the rumours are that the Government intend to abolish the quota system. No doubt Thatcherite principles will dictate that the quota system is a burden on employers. Compassion plays no part in the race to surrender everything to the hidden and often grotesque hand of the market.
      One would have expected the Government to give a lead in ensuring that in their Departments at least 3 per cent. of the work force was disabled. This afternoon I received a written answer to a question that I put to the Prime Minister about the number of registered disabled people employed by the Cabinet Office. I was told:
      "There are 16 registered disabled persons employed by the Cabinet Office, which represents approximately 1 per cent. of the total work force, and none at 10 Downing street."
      The answer added, ironically:
      "The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer".
      The right hon. Lady could have fooled all of us. Indeed, she will be trying to do that if it is suggested that the Government want to adhere to the 3 per cent. quota.
      The number of people who chose to register under the 1984 Act fell from 936,196 in 1950 to 389,273 in 1986. This signifies a complete lack of confidence on the part of disabled people in the adequacy of the existing law and even more in the willingness of the Government fully to apply and implement—to use the Prime Minister's own word—the law as it now stands.
      It is rather interesting that more than 1,230,000 people have registered with local authorities as disabled under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which shows that people have more confidence that local authorities may try to provide them with services than in their providing them with suitable employment.
      The percentage of employers abiding by the law and meeting the quota fell from 53·2 per cent. in 1965 to 26·8
      68
      per cent. in 1986. In 1986, 56 per cent. of employers were not meeting the quota and were being issued with permits by the Minister's Department. It was even true in 1986 that no fewer than 17·2 per cent. of those not meeting the quota had no permit to break the law—I insist, "break the law".
      If the Government are considering the quota system in their internal review, as the Minister has told me in answer to a parliamentary question, they should take on board the views of disabled people's organisations. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf says of the quota system:
      "despite some calls for its abolition we believe it should be retained, strengthened and enforced."
      The Spastics Society, in consulting its members in April this year, found that
      "Most favoured the retention of the quota system and the majority of these argued strongly for stricter enforcement and fewer exemptions."
      The Government may argue that this is one of those famous burdens on industry. They are not too worried about burdens on the disabled, but they are worried about burdens on industry. However, it is hardly a burden on industry when it can so easily be lifted by Tory Ministers, as has happened in the past five years. In each of the past five years Ministers have issued over 18,000 permits. I should like to know what the criteria are that lead Ministers to exempt so many employers. The law is certainly needed, but it also needs to be applied. This is something else that Tory Governments in particular have failed to do.
      Since the 1944 Act, there have been only 10 prosecutions. The last one was in 1975, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I understand. Only one of those prosecutions was during the lifetime of a Tory Government, and that was in 1973. Of the 10 cases that have been heard, two were dismissed and one employer received only an admonition. Fines covering the other seven cases totalled only £434. So there is a case for stiffening the law, and new clause 16 would enable people other than the Minister to take proceedings against employers who deliberately break the law.
      New clause 17 is, if anything, the most important of these clauses because for the first time it will enable the House of Commons to vote on the question of discrimination against disabled persons. There have been disgraceful events such as the one on 18 November 1983 when my own private Member's Bill to outlaw all discrimination against disabled people was "unofficially" whipped against by the Government and there was a vote on a closure. This is the first time that we can vote on discrimination against disabled people on matters of employment. Incidentally, by pushing forward the boundaries of equal opportunities, we shall be doing what would have been done had a Labour Government been in office after 1979 because in 1979 my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe appointed the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, which recommended that Government should take action to outlaw discrimination, particularly in this vital area of employment.
      The first seven clauses of this Bill deal inadequately with the question of discrimination on grounds of sex. It is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex or of ethnic origin or race, but it is still perfectly legal in this country that calls itself civilised for an employer deliberately to

      69
      discriminate against a person because he or she is disabled. I believe that the time has now come for the abolition of this scourge of disabled people.
      The number of disabled people is very great. We know from the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that 6 million people in our country are disabled. The Royal College of Physicians estimates that approximately one person in 10 is physically disabled and that about 2 million of those people are of working age. Yet only 31 per cent. of disabled people of working age are in paid employment. That is according to the Government's own OPCS survey—and I tell the Minister this because he seemed in some doubt about it some weeks ago.
      The degree of unemployment among disabled people is enormous, and the more severe the disability the worse it is, so that 48 per cent. of disabled people in severity category 1 are working but only 2 per cent. in severity category 10 are working. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has estimated that there are in this country 1·4 million adults of working age with a clinically significant loss of hearing, but that only 50,000 who are profoundly deaf are in the working population. So there is quite clearly a job to be done, and the Opposition believe that the Bill provides the opportunity to do something.
      When we look at the question of unemployment among disabled people we find that not only are they discriminated against, not only are they the people who are most likely to be without a job, but they are also the ones who are most likely to be without a job for the longest time. Whereas only 8 per cent. of non-disabled people have been jobless for more than two years, no fewer than 26 per cent. of disabled job seekers have been jobless for more than two years.
      The Government's willingness to tackle the problem can be measured by the fact that between 1981 and 1985 they cut the number of disablement resettlement officers by 30 per cent. and reduced the training period of those officers to two weeks—a measly two weeks to train people to do a vital job for a part of the community which has talents that should be taken into account. I believe that far too often society takes more account of the supposed incapabilities of disabled people than of their capabilities.
      That discrimination exists there can be no doubt. The Spastics Society survey in 1986 showed that 152 secretarial jobs were applied for and two applications based on two standard letters were sent out for those jobs. Where there was no disability involved, 97 per cent. of the applicants received positive responses. Where a disability was mentioned, only 59 per cent. received positive responses. There is also much anecdotal evidence of which the Minister should be aware, although I doubt whether he is, and should be exploring as the Minister responsible for the disabled.
      It is not only an absence of job opportunities but an absence of adequate earnings that faces so many disabled people. The average gross weekly earnings of male full-time workers is £192·40, whereas for disabled male full-time workers the figure is only £156·70. That is 81 per cent. of the average wages of the working population.
      6.30 pm
      The figures I am quoting are from the OPCS survey—the Government's own survey. When gross weekly earnings are broken down by severity category, the differences are even more stark. For male full-time
      70
      employees in severity categories 1 and 2, the level of earnings is only 86 per cent. of that for the average working population. Men who are categorised in group 5 or above receive only 72 per cent. of the average earnings of their non-disabled counterparts. That disparity is seen even when the figures are broken down into hourly rates of pay. For categories 1 and 2, the hourly rate is 90 per cent. of the rate paid to able-bodied workers. For categories 5 and above, the figure is only 74 per cent.
      The discrimination in earnings has obvious repercussions on the living standards and lifestyles of disabled people. The cost of disability must be taken into account, as well as the low amounts that so many disabled people receive. Those who are on the lower incomes find that they have to make choices about priorities. The need to spend extra on disability-related items may result in a lower standard of living than that of non-disabled people on the same income level.
      It could be argued that our proposal is in line with previous statutory provisions and actually strengthens them. I remind the Minister that the Companies (Directors' Report) (Employment of Disabled Persons) Regulations 1980, administered by the Department of Trade and Industry, require information to be given in directors' reports on what is being done to train, employ and promote the career prospects of disabled employees. It is time to act. The Government should act in combination with the Department of Trade and Industry to strengthen the cause of giving a wider choice to disabled people. After all, this Government talk about freedom and choice, yet the only thing that they seem to give disabled people is sympathy. Disabled people require more than sympathy; they require positive action. Any Government with a semblance of humanity would endorse the new clauses.
      The Government's response will be watched carefully by the 6 million disabled people in our country. I hope that the recent report that the Government are planning to axe disability allowances for those who take up employment training is not a precursor of what to expect when it comes to tackling the real problems of disabled people in the labour market. I hope that the House will endorse the new clauses. If it does not, it will be to the detriment of the Government in the near future, who will have to face the wrath of that large minority of the population who are disabled and the wrath of the members of their families.
      Mr. Jack Ashley: I want to speak briefly in support of the new clauses. Throughout the years, various Governments have tried to end the quota system and the argument they use is that persuasion is better than prosecution. The fact that their unemployment figures are so high and that so many disabled people are short of employment makes an absurdity of that claim. We need both persuasion and prosecution. We need to persuade some employers to accept their moral and legal obligations to employ registered disabled people as 3 per cent. of their labour force. We also need to prosecute those who are breaking the law, when persuasion fails. It is essential that we should now do both.
      The Government must stop evading the issue and they should ensure that the quota is fully implemented. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, break the law by parking your car on a double yellow line, or by stealing cash from a store, you are prosecuted—and rightly so. The same is true of any hon. Member. But employers who break the law by failing

      71
      to fulfil the quota and then by taking on non-disabled workers without a permit are not prosecuted. This Government are condoning law-breaking and that is wholly inexcusable.
      There is no substitute for the quota unless the Government are prepared to bring in a levy system. If the Government want to drop the quota, let them bring in a levy system, which imposes a levy on those employers who will not employ disabled people as 3 per cent. of the work force. That is fine. We would then have good employers who employed disabled people as 3 per cent. of their work force and bad employers who would not, but who would pay nevertheless. That is why the Government should either enforce the quota or bring in a levy of 3 per cent. of the payroll, to be paid to the good employers.
      The amount of discrimination against disabled people in Britain is appalling. Severely disabled people find that every day of their lives, especially in jobs and in applications for jobs. Unless this Government take action, severely disabled people will continue to suffer abysmal discrimination. As the OPCS report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, we cannot seek to justify any kind of wild discrimination. All we are trying to do is to outlaw unjustified discrimination, as the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People pointed out. The best way of tackling discrimination is to outlaw it, as is being done in other countries, such as the United States and Australia, and there is no reason why we should not do that.
      Today I wear three hats. I am the chairman of the all-party disablement group. We deplore the failure of employers to fulfil the quota. As chairman of that group, I speak for hon. Members of all parties. We want to keep the quota and we want it to be enforced properly. I also speak as president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. That organisation feels deeply about the discrimination against deaf people in employment. I also speak as a disabled person. We resent the discrimination against all kinds of disabled people, we regret it and we ask the Government to act. That is all we are seeking. We do not seek punitive or wild measures, just reasonably firm action to ensure that disabled people get a decent chance of a job.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: Disabled people have been the victims of unemployment in the past decade more often than fit people. That is true not only of industry in general, but even of Remploy, the organisation especially devoted to helping provide jobs for disabled people. We have seen stagnation in certain sections there. I represent a part of Remploy which has seen stagnation and reduction. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us how many extra jobs have been created in Remploy for disabled people in the past decade. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) was right to demand a categorical assurance from the Minister that the quota system, which the new clauses seek to improve, will not be abolished and is not being threatened by any proposed Government changes.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, we are talking not only about disabled people who are unemployed but about those in
      72
      employment, who are paid lower wages than other people. There is nothing more degrading for disabled people than being paid poor wages—except, that is, being unemployed.
      My hon. Friend said that disabled people were being paid £150 a week, compared with a national average of £190. I remind the House of the wages paid to those in the one organisation that is devoted to offering job opportunities in manufacturing to disabled people. I refer to those in Remploy, who earn £90 a week. The level at which the Government pay income support is £110 a week. The TUC threshold level is £133 a week. The wages of those in Remploy come nowhere near that, let alone the European decency wages of £141 a week. That means that even those employed in the organisation that has been specially devoted to creating and maintaining employment for the disabled are some of the poorest wage earners in the country. Those people deserve a much better deal.
      Since 1980, the gap between the income of those in Remploy and those outside it has grown. Remploy workers' wages used to be related to those paid for local government work. In 1980 the difference in wages between those inside Remploy and those outside it was 12p a week; in 1989, the difference is £11 a week. Not only have opportunities stagnated in many sections of Remploy; there is a growing gap between the wages paid to its workers and those paid elsewhere.
      I wholeheartedly support the new clause, which would increase the quota. We demand from the Minister a categorical assurance that there is no suggestion that the Government will abolish the quota system—as it has been suggested they will abolish wages councils. At the same time, I underline the point that even those disabled people who are in employment—and particularly in Remploy—are some of the poorest paid workers in the country.
      Mr. Lee: The new clauses would affect in various ways the arrangements for ensuring that people with disabilities can obtain and retain suitable employment. Although I am in sympathy with the motives underlying them, they are all of doubtful value as a means of achieving improvements in this very important area.
      New clause 15 would make it impossible to lower the standard percentage of registered disabled people under the quota scheme from its current level of 3 per cent. Registration under the Act is voluntary and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said the number of people who choose to register has declined steadily—from more than 660,000 in 1961 to fewer than 375,000 in 1988. It is therefore now impossible for all employers who fall within the scope of the quota scheme to achieve the 3 per cent. figure. It would be unwise, therefore, not to retain the flexibility to lower the percentage if it were judged that that would increase the quota scheme's effectiveness.
      Mr. Haynes: Will the Minister tell the House the percentage of disabled people who work in the Palace of Westminster? Then we shall see whether the Government should be prosecuted.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Lee: As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I do not have that figure with me—
      Mr. Haynes: The hon. Member should have.
      Mr. Lee: —and indeed, it is not my personal ministerial responsibility.
      Although I should emphasise that we currently have no plans to do this, it seems to me perfectly possible that, at some time in the future, circumstances might make it appropriate to move to a lower figure.
      Mr. Rowlands: I am trying to ascertain what the Minister has just mumbled to us. Was he talking about lowering the quota or actually abolishing it? Will he give us a categorical assurance that the Government do not contemplate abolishing the quota?
      Mr. Lee: What I would say is that the quota is one of many items under consideration in the overall review that we are undertaking. That has been made perfectly clear.
      New clause 16 would end the current arrangement whereby the power to bring or authorise prosecutions for offences under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 is restricted to this Department. It has been the policy of successive Governments, since the Act was first introduced, to bring prosecutions only as a last resort and to pursue a policy of education and persuasion designed to secure and improve the policies and practices of all employers in relation to the employment of people with disabilities. There is no evidence that the current policy on prosecutions has led to a major problem of employers failing to employ people with disabilities. Although 76 per cent. of eligible firms are below the standard percentage, this is largely because of the decline in numbers of registered disabled people. In any event, no offence is committed unless they recruit someone other than a registered disabled person without first obtaining a permit to do so.
      Mr. Wallace: I understood the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) to say that the number of registered disabled people had fallen so much because of a lack of confidence in the quota system. To some extent, it is a chicken and egg situation, I suppose, but will the Minister respond to the specific criticism made by the hon. Member for West Derby?
      Mr. Lee: As anyone concerned with these matters will concede one of the problems is that we just do not know the size of the market or the size of the problem. That is one of the reasons why my Department is undertaking a major survey whose results we expect to have by the end of the year.
      Many employers have other employees who could have registered disabled but who have chosen not to do so. I believe that our policy, backed up, as it is, with practical help to individuals to assist them to overcome problems that they face as a result of their disability, is the best way of securing a genuine commitment among employers to employing people with disabilities.
      New clause 17, which seeks to make it unlawful for employers to discriminate against potential employees on the grounds of their disability, is similarly inconsistent with the Government's line. There may be discrimination, although its scale is not clear. The Government believe that encouragement to employers to adopt good practices, combined with practical help in doing so, is the right way forward, and preferable to anti-discrimination measures such as that proposed in the new clause, which would
      74
      undoubtedly be difficult and costly to enforce and possibly even counter-productive, making a constructive approach by employers less likely.
      The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that people with disabilities are given appropriate help in obtaining and retaining employment. We maintain a wide range of services which provide invaluable assistance to a large number of people with disabilities who are seeking employment or who are already in employment.
      We are currently reviewing all our services and have commissioned a major survey of the number and characteristics of people with disabilities. The first draft of the consultative document is being considered by Ministers—
      Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On the subject of that first draft, the Minister has suggested that a degree of flexibility will be required. The law regarding the employment of disabled people passed in 1944 said that not less than 3 per cent. of a given work force should be disabled. The new clause seeks to achieve what was intended then. For 45 years we have had no success in persuading employers to abide by the law. The Department has issued permits of exemption, which shows that the Government have no intention of ensuring that the law is abided by. The first draft has fallen short of what should be the aim, and the Minister has even come here without relevant figures—even those for the disabled employed in the Palace of Westminster or in Government Departments. His sincerity is in question.
      Mr. Lee: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's points suggest to us the need for the flexibility that we seek. I reiterate my earlier comment that the whole question of the quota is being looked at in the review that is under way. We shall take the figures to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred into consideration in the consultative document. We are pledged to publish that document and consult interested parties. Our considered view is that the new clauses would not help the continuing development of appropriate provision.
      Mr. Wareing: Will the Minister take the opportunity to tell us what criteria his Department uses in granting permits to allow employers to avoid the quota system?
      Mr. Lee: I should have thought that the answer was fairly obvious—the criteria would be the requirements of the particular employer and the numbers of disabled people available for employment in the relevant jobcentre areas. Those would be the dominant considerations, together with any other sensible and realistic evidence. I hope that the Opposition will not press the amendments, but if they do we shall resist them.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a compelling case and I congratulate him on his speech. These are very important matters for disabled people, and their representatives have made it strikingly clear that they want the legislative change sought by the amendments.
      My hon. Friend recalled that in 1979, as the then Minister for the Disabled, I set up the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People—CORAD—to establish the nature and extent of discrimination and whether legislation was required. Many of the submissions to CORAD stated that

      75
      " … cases of discrimination are serious and widespread."
      Hundreds of responses gave specific and very disquieting examples. There was discrimination against the disabled then, as there is now, and it is deplorable that the Government's reaction to that committee's report has been so utterly negative.
      CORAD strongly recommended legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. It asked for legislation similar to that designed to protect women and ethnic minorities, to prevent
      " … the unjustifiable withholding, whether intentional or not, of some service, facility or opportunity from a disabled person because of that person's disability."
      As well as providing legal protection and redress, legislation would, as both CORAD and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in his speech tonight emphasised, also affect people's attitudes and behaviour through education, persuasion and example.
      The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 already establishes disabled people's rights in important areas such as housing, personal social services and access. CORAD reported the many notable improvements in those and many other areas during the first 10 years of the Act, but there has been scant progress since. This is an opportunity to make progress that would be welcomed by many of the major national organisations of and for disabled people.
      The figures for unemployment among disabled job seekers shout of discrimination against them. They suffer from low pay and lack of opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby should be congratulated both on the amendments and on his earlier attempt to legislate against discrimination by means of a private Member's Bill. As he said, the House has its first opportunity tonight to vote on discrimination against disabled people. I welcome that opportunity and ask all who wish to show their concern for what people with disabilities are seeking for themselves to support the amendments.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER having directed that the doors he locked—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I direct the doors to be reopened for another two minutes.
      Whereupon the doors were unlocked.
      Mr. Hugo Summerson(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if the timing for the Division could he checked. It appears to me that the Division started at 6.54 pm and that the order to lock the doors was given at 7 pm, thus allowing only six minutes instead of eight minutes to vote.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here earlier. There was an error, and I instructed the doors to be locked too early. It was for that reason that I instructed the doors to be unlocked. They are still unlocked.
      The House having divided: Ayes 169, Noes 259.

      Division No. 221]

      [6.53 pm

      AYES

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, Donald

      Alton, David

      Archer, Rt Hon peter

      76

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Illsley, Eric

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Janner, Greville

      Barron, Kevin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Battle, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Kennedy, Charles

      Beith, A. J.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bell, Stuart

      Lamond, James

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Leighton, Ron

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Lewis, Terry

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Livsey, Richard

      Blunkett, David

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Boyes, Roland

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McCartney, Ian

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Buckley, George J.

      McKelvey, William

      Caborn, Richard

      Madden, Max

      Callaghan, Jim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Marek, Dr John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Meacher, Michael

      Cartwright, John

      Meale, Alan

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Michael, Alun

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Clay, Bob

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Clelland, David

      Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Cohen, Harry

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Morley, Elliott

      Corbett, Robin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Cousins, Jim

      Mullin, Chris

      Crowther, Stan

      Nellist, Dave

      Cryer, Bob

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Dalyell, Tam

      Patchett, Terry

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Pike, Peter L.

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

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Dixon, Don

      Prescott, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Doran, Frank

      Randall, Stuart

      Douglas, Dick

      Redmond, Martin

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Reid, Dr John

      Eadie, Alexander

      Richardson, Jo

      Eastham, Ken

      Robertson, George

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Fatchett, Derek

      Rogers, Allan

      Faulds, Andrew

      Rooker, Jeff

      Fearn, Ronald

      Rowlands, Ted

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Fisher, Mark

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Flannery, Martin

      Sheerman, Barry

      Flynn, Paul

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Short, Clare

      Foster, Derek

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foulkes, George

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Fraser, John

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

      Galbraith, Sam

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

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Snape, Peter

      George, Bruce

      Soley, Clive

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Stott, Roger

      Gould, Bryan

      Strang, Gavin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Straw, Jack

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Turner, Dennis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Vaz, Keith

      Grocott, Bruce

      Wall, Pat

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Wallace, James

      Hinchliffe, David

      Walley, Joan

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Howells, Geraint

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Hoyle, Doug

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      77

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Allen Adams.

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Freeman, Roger

      Alexander, Richard

      French, Douglas

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Amos, Alan

      Gardiner, George

      Arbuthnot, James

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gill, Christopher

      Atkins, Robert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Baldry, Tony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gow, Ian

      Batiste, Spencer

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gregory, Conal

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Benyon, W.

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Ground, Patrick

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hague, William

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hannam, John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Harris, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Hayward, Robert

      Bright, Graham

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

      Heddle, John

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Burt, Alistair

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Butler, Chris

      Hind, Kenneth

      Butterfill, John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howard, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

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

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Cash, William

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Irvine, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Jack, Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jackson, Robert

      Curry, David

      Janman, Tim

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      Kilfedder, James

      Durant, Tony

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Evennett, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Fallon, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Favell, Tony

      Knowles, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Knox, David

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman'

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Lang, Ian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Latham, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Franks, Cecil

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      78

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Lilley, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Rost, Peter

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      McCrindle, Robert

      Ryder, Richard

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Maclean, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shersby, Michael

      Madel, David

      Sims, Roger

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Maples, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Marlow, Tony

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Speller, Tony

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mates, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Steen, Anthony

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mellor, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Sumberg, David

      Mills, Iain

      Summerson, Hugo

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Moate, Roger

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Thorne, Neil

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mudd, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trotter, Neville

      Neubert, Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Ward, John

      Norris, Steve

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Warren, Kenneth

      Page, Richard

      Watts, John

      Paice, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wheeler, John

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wilshire, David

      Pawsey, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Portillo, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Price, Sir David

      Yeo, Tim

      Raffan, Keith

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Redwood, John

      Renton, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Riddick, Graham

      Mr. David Lightbowne and

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7.8 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is my pleasure to introduce the Second Reading of the Bill. It is said that:
"It would be of public and local advantage to provide for the establishment of a further market in the part of the borough known as Ilford notwithstanding the infringement or non-compliance thereby with any rule of law or enactment:"
Many towns already have local markets but Ilford in the London borough of Redbridge is prevented from doing so because of the existence of other markets nearby. The purpose of the Bill is to give the right to establish a market that most other boroughs already have. In the neighbouring borough of Havering, which includes Romford, in 1247, in the reign of Henry III, a royal writ was issued establishing a market. The council today holds markets everywhere in Romford on every Wednesday throughout the year. Havering council claims the legal fiction of a "lost modern grant", which enables it to hold a market at Romford on Saturdays throughout the year. Havering also holds a statutory Food Act market on Fridays throughout the year at Romford. Thus Havering council holds three markets on premier trading days of the week and, because two of its markets—the Wednesday and Saturday markets—enjoy the benefit of protection under the common law, no other market may be established within a distance of 6¾ miles from Romford.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that, as a good old-fashioned Tory, he does not agree with market forces, and that somehow or other he wants those markets protected, or is it that he is a good old-fashioned Tory, but that this knighted Tory, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), is not interested in market forces? I want to get this clear, because this could be a long evening. I want to know which is the Thatcherite and which is the Heathite. Will the hon. Gentleman explain before we go any further?
Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, has put his finger on a very interesting point. I assure him that I believe in the free market. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) will no doubt try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and explain his position later.
Because the markets on Wednesday and Saturday enjoy the benefit of protection under the common law, no other market may be established within a distance of 6¾ miles from Romford. The 6¾ miles represent the 13th century jurist Bracton's concept of one third the Roman dieta. The Roman thought was that one could travel 20 miles in a day. Therefore, to travel to a market should take a third of a day, one should spend a third of a day at the market and another third going back, which would allow one to travel 6¾ miles in each direction. That is the basis on which this present custom continues.
Ilford lies within the 6¾ mile radius and the Ilford town centre, which is the main shopping centre of the Redbridge local authority area, is therefore deprived of its statutory powers by that ancient common law right. It now wishes to establish a market of its own.
80
In this increasingly sophisticated economy, we find that more and more people expect to shop in a wide variety of shops. They want value, choice and diversity. In order to do that properly, we find that a lot of traders expect to have a market nearby. It was not so long ago that markets tended to be rather scruffy and untidy, but that is now in the past. The majority of markets are high quality, well-designed areas, where one can expect to buy exotic fruits and vegetables at the one end of the spectrum and antiques and craftwork at the other.
Mr. Skinner: What about monocles?
Mr. Thorne: They probably sell those too.
These markets actually encourage conventional retail trade and they are, therefore, welcomed by conventional traders, whereas in the past markets were generally considered to be derogatory and most ordinary traders preferred that they should not be permitted to run side by side with conventional shops.
An efficient and well-run market has become an essential part of any well-developed shopping centre and Redbridge council, having put in a bypass, now wishes to take full advantage of modern shopping methods. A new shopping centre is being developed by the pension funds of some insurance companies. Substantial sums are being invested on behalf of pensioners in that area. Those companies and the shopkeepers locally are very anxious that there should be an open-air market in the Ilford area. The present proposal is that a market shall be permitted within one mile of Ilford town centre.
The traders' association and the local chamber of trade have given this matter full support, and in the past couple of weeks they have been at some pains to obtain signatures to a petition. More than 6,500 people have already signed the petition in favour of such a market.
Mr. Kevin Barron: How many people from Romford have signed the petition for that market?
Mr. Thorne: I have not examined the petition to see how many people from Romford have signed it, but, if the House allows me to speak later, I shall endeavour to make a rough calculation and tell the hon. Gentleman.
The question of the 6¾ miles has already been referred to in a recent case by the Vice-Chancellor of the Chancery Division of the High Court as archaic. I believe that the majority of people would consider such an arbitrary distance now to be quite archaic.
As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has suggested, there may be some people with vested interests who would be against such a proposal and would oppose it, especially those from the Romford area. However, I assure him that that is not universal. Many people in Romford support the opportunity of market facilities being provided in the area. If the hon. Gentleman is interested and looks at a map of the markets in the region, he will see that there is an acute shortage of markets in that part of London. One of the reasons that the London borough of Redbridge is promoting the Bill is to ensure that that to some extent is put right.
Mr. Skinner: Vested interests is a serious matter. The hon. Gentleman has said that about 6,000 have signed in favour of the project. My experience is that, when markets have been proposed—in all parts of the country really—there have been local shopkeepers who have not been very keen on the idea. I know that in Derbyshire there have

81
been several instances where initially—sometimes it has changed—shopkeepers have opposed it. Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that none of the local shopkeepers were saying that they were a bit worried about the market? I would be intrigued if there were none. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the position of the local shopkeepers?
Mr. Thorne: As I said before, the chamber of trade and the local shopkeepers have indicated that they are in favour. They find that an open-air market, especially one of modest size, encourages trade because it encourages people to come to the local area. Well run markets are an encouragement. The tatty old markets that one used to find in the past, which were upsetting to local shopkeepers, are now out and we can expect shopkeepers in future to view open-air markets in a different light. I am certainly not saying that every single shopkeeper in Ilford is in favour, but I have not had my attention drawn to any who have indicated dissent, whereas I have had confirmation from the chamber of trade and others that they are very much in favour. After all, it was the chamber of trade that set out to raise the petition, and it has now collected 6,500 signatures. That was its own idea. I believe, therefore, that the whole tempo is changing in that regard. I hope that that will be the case in other parts of the country, too, in future.
Some of the objections from Havering are technical and some financial, based on the idea that the Romford market will he damaged by a market in Ilford. Romford market has provision for 600 spaces and 300 traders work there, with an average of two stalls per trader. That substantial market has been in existence for more than 600 years, so it is well-established.
Mr. Martin Redmond: The hon. Gentlman said that there are 600 pitches at Romford. Why are 300 empty? If there is such a demand for market stalls, one would have thought that market traders would be only too pleased to go to Romford market.
Mr. Thorne: Forgive me, but I obviously did not explain myself well. There is provision for 600 stalls at Romford. There are 300 traders and, on average, they have two stalls each. Some have only one and others have three. The proposal for Ilford is to site the market on an existing car park, with provision for between 50 and 60 stalls, and there would be a new multi-storey car park. We are talking about an entirely different scale, perhaps only I0 per cent. of the spaces available at Romford market.
Any problems should be resolved by an opposed Bill Committee, which is the correct place to argue these matters. I suggest that the Bill should be given the general approval of the House and it would be up to members of the opposed Bill Committee to decide whether the arguments were fair and correct.
As to whatever harm would be done to Romford, the Bill promises compensation for losses to the franchise of Romford's market. That is a generous offer. It is strange that a firm such as Sainsbury's can happily open a store within 6 miles of another major store, such as Tesco, and not have to offer compensation, whereas Redbridge is offering compensation to Romford if loss is proved.
Redbridge has received 250 applications for the 60 possible sites, which shows the ready demand that exists.
Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman says that compensation has been put on the table, which means that
82
compensation will be paid if there is a loss of business. Will he elaborate a little? What is the ceiling and for how many years will the offer be on the table?
Mr. Thorne: Any compensation would have to be agreed by valuers. This aspect would have to be considereed by the opposed Bill Committee because it is technical. It would be necessary for the valuers of the two local authorities to get together to decide on a reasonable and satisfactory formula, and it would be wrong for me to pre-empt what they might decide. The timing would be hammered out by the opposed Bill Committee.
Mr. Redmond: I accept that the valuers would toss around ideas on the amount of money that would be lost. Given my experience, I am always a little sceptical about Bills leaving this place and going into Committee if I am not totally convinced about the merits of the arguments.
Mr. Thorne: I shall consider that matter further and, if given the opportunity, try to respond to it later. The technical details would be hammered out in the opposed Bill Committee, but at this stage 1 can say that after six months the valuers would establish whether there had been any major change. That would be a reasonable period in which to see whether there had been an adverse effect. The matter would have to be agreed between the valuers and it would be wrong for me to pre-empt their negotiations.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall raise this matter later if I have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to give my hon. Friend the chance to deal with it. Under the Bill a claim must be submitted within three months of the legislation being passed. Is my hon. Friend conceding that the wording is wrong and that the Committee should amend it?
Mr. Thorne: I can confirm that the date is negotiable. I understand that that period has already been proposed by the respective local authorities.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor indicated dissent.
Mr. Thorne: If it has not been formally proposed, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance now.
Redbridge is keen to give its shoppers a complete spectrum of shopping facilities. The shopping system has changed considerably in recent years, let alone over the past 600. We should look towards what is required in today's age. When Romford market was first used, a large part was devoted to cattle and sheep trading. I remember that not so long ago livestock occupied a substantial part of the market, but the market has changed. The places that were occupied by cattle pens are now occupied by smart market stalls. Romford market clearly needed to change, and Redbridge wishes to be able to change as well.
Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman has made some good points about the period during which the market has been in its position. Given that in 1247 the authorities prevented the market from being put in the place where the hon. Gentleman wishes it to go, has he been in touch with the Crown who issued the writ in the first place to ask Her Majesty whether she believes that her subjects should be treated in the same way now? That point should have been pursued before the Bill was considered by the House.
Mr. Thorne: This is the right and proper forum for deciding the future of a market in Redbridge. That is why the London borough of Redbridge has come to the House to seek approval.
It is important in this day and age, when rents and rates for accommodation are ever on the increase, that we should give people the opportunity to start trading and a market stall is an extremely effective and efficient way of doing so. That opportunity should be available throughout the country so that large numbers of people have the opportunity to start a small business. There is no better way of starting a small shop. The examples of this include British Home Stores and Marks and Spencer, and the many other shops that started as market stalls. We should allow that. I certainly hope that the House will agree and, therefore, give the Bill a Second Reading.
7.30 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I do not wish to speak at great length. I spoke for two hours 40 minutes on the recent City of London (Various Powers) Bill before I was cut short by a closure. That was the longest speech in the Session so far, and I do not intend to repeat that.
Mr. Skinner: I was present then, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) gave a bravura performance, but there was one weakness. The Secretary of State for the Environment was trying to pinch part of the forest in my hon. Friend's constituency. That was made abundantly clear, but we did not ascertain the amount of land in question. One weakness of my hon. Friend's contribution was that he seemed unable to tell me the kind of trees involved. Could my hon. Friend remedy that today?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will not respond to that intervention. We are concerned only with the market development.
Mr. Cohen: I certainly shall not respond to my hon. Friend's intervention, although trees were involved. In the other debate the Minister for Roads and Traffic suggested that it was scrubland. There are trees all over the place. However, I do not want to go on about trees because we are talking about a market, which is different. In that other debate I was just warming up, but I do not have the opportunity here to get to the substance of what I was on about. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right: forest land was being stolen from my constituency.
The two Bills share a common feature and it is the reason why I objected to both of them. I looked at all the private Bills at the beginning of this Session and was concerned about a number, but objected to only two because they had local implications. One was the City of London (Various Powers) Bill to steal my forest land, which has still not been given back, and I shall take that further. The M11 link road scheme also worried me. This Bill worries me because Redbridge has had by far the better deal on roads from the Department of Transport than my borough, Waltham Forest. I am talking not merely about building roads, because we could do without that, but how those roads are built and the environmental effects involved.
In the other debate I suggested that there should be a linear park through Leyton which would provide
84
environmental beauty to the area instead of the environmental monstrosity of the Department of Transport's plan. Redbridge has the money for roads. The Department of Transport has been biased.
Mr. Vivian Bendall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the roads that serve Redbridge were financed by the Greater London council, not the Department of Transport?
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes a super point for me to use later. I hate to give away my speech so early, but one of my arguments is that there should be a strategic planning authority for London, just like the GLC. Clearly, as he has praised the GLC, the hon. Gentleman will come to my support when I make that point. He is obviously saying that the GLC helped with roads in his area, and I am pleased. It also helped in my area, and it was only under the Department of Transport that we had such a rotten deal from the Minister for Roads and Traffic, the husband of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
It is ironic that we have had such a rotten deal on the environment. I have a lot of time for the Under-Secretary. Will she kick her husband in bed one evening and say, "I'm a Minister for the Environment, you are the Minister for Roads, will you give Leyton a bit of a good environment?" I know that a Minister's life is a hard life.
Mr. Skinner: I am not having that.
Mr. Cohen: The Minister for Roads and Transport said that he had visited my area and did not understand the questions asked of him on that visit.
Mr. Skinner: He has a chauffeur-driven car.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will come to the question of the market. I should like to hear what he has to say about the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Cohen: This is fundamental to the point that I want to make. Redbridge has received money for roads and has had a better deal from the Department of Transport than has Leyton and Waltham Forest. When the market is built, it will be served by roads; a number of roads are already in place. The source of my objection and deep concern was that the money would go to Redbridge. Perhaps it would not do so immediately because some roads are there already, but, in future, Redbridge might get the roads money that should go to Leyton for a better environment along the M11 link road, which is being used to steal our forest.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill has one objective only—the establishment of a market. It has nothing to do with roads leading from Leyton.
Mr. Cohen: I absolutely agree that it deals with the establishment of a market, but people have to get to a market to shop.
Mr. Skinner: The nub of the matter is that there will have to be roads. The point was well put by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) who said that there used to be a cattle market. Obviously, people then travelled over lanes and fields, but we are not living in that age now and we are talking about markets served by roads. We cannot discuss this properly without considering the

85
general environmental background, which means the infrastructure, roads and everything else, and that could affect my hon. Friend's constituency. All these roads lead to Leyton.
Mr. Cohen: The problem is that the roads lead to Leyton, but when they reach it they do not find the good environment or the greenness that goes with it. Therefore, the Leyton people suffer.
The source of my concern was that the road network around the market for Ilford would be improved and Redbridge would get the money again. That is serious because it has political implications. Certainly, in my area there is a feeling that, when it comes to environmental improvements, Conservative boroughs get the money from the Conservative Government We have only to look at the Channel tunnel to see that Conservative areas have a special deal, while Labour areas are left to rot by the Tory Government. That is political bias, and it is not the way in which markets and the roads around them should be planned.
Mr. Redmond: Strategic planning is, I believe, an important element of how the proposed market fits into the overall picture. Perhaps there should be an authority to look at London as a whole. I remember my hon. Friend speaking one evening in the Chamber about the proposal to move Spitalfields market: he was worried about the loss of character that the move would entail. Markets cannot retain the character that they have possessed for many years if they are moved from one place to another. I do not know London as well as my hon. Friend, but I feel that we should examine the sites of such markets throughout the city.
Let me echo my hon. Friend's remarks to the Minister. Last time we discussed a private Bill we faced someone far less attractive, and it is well worth our while to be here this evening.
Mr. Cohen: I shall not go into the Spitalfields issue tonight, as I have already made my views clear. My hon. Friend is, however, right to say that a strategic planning authority for London is needed to consider the implications of the building of markets and the roads around them. Parliament has not the necessary localised knowledge. This is not Parliament's job; we have plenty of other serious issues to address. Today we have heard statements on China and on the NATO conference, but we should have debated those issues. Those are the real issues for the Parliament of today, rather than the question of some regional market—although it may be important to local people. The market seems to be the cause of an internecine battle between the authorities of Redbridge and Romford which should be sorted out at local level by a strategic planning authority like the old GLC.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I believe that I am the only Member present this evening who was also present for the entire two hours and 40 minutes of the hon. Gentleman's speech on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill. If he really feels that we should not be debating this matter, the solution lies in his hands. I wonder whether his speech this evening will last as long.
86
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the political bias that might be evident. Will he confirm that Labour-controlled Waltham Forest district council has no objection to the Bill?
Mr. Cohen: That was one of the things that put my back up. I objected to the Bill because of the road implications to which I have referred. Like any hon. Member who objects to legislation on such grounds, not knowing all the implications for my constituency—shopping implications, for instance—I expected the promoters to discuss them with me at an early stage. I see that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is getting het up. Let me be fair: he arranged for the chief executive and the borough solicitor to come and discuss the matter with me last week. It was very late in the day, but I was grateful. Part of the purpose of my speech is to put on record some of the assurances that they gave about the roads not affecting Leyton adversely—or so they claimed.
For months on end, not a word came from the Bill's promoters in response to my legitimate concern expressed in the form of an objection. Then I received a letter of literally three lines from the agent for the borough council, which said, "Why are you objecting? Your council does not object." The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) made the same point. I was deeply insulted. I sent back a very curt postcard saying, "My council does not always speak for Leyton. Members of Parliament have the right to speak for their areas as well." It was rude of the agent not even to bother to find out why I was concerned about the Bill.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's other point, I certainly do not intend to speak for two hours and 40 minutes this evening. Nevertheless, I have important and legitimate points to make. Leyton, after all, is a neighbour of Redbridge. We have a football team called Leytonstone and Ilford: it used to be called Leytonstone before it merged with Ilford. I fear that you are a little anxious, Madam Deputy Speaker, but one of the team's problems is that it now has no ground and has been thrown out of the league.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we get back to markets rather than discussing football teams?
Mr. Cohen: Perhaps the team could play on the ground where the market would be.
Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. Would the market be held on football match days? That could complicate matters. I hope that my hon. Friend can also tell us whether the recently promoted Leyton Orient could play in the same area.
Mr. Cohen: Leyton Orient play in Brisbane road, Leyton. At the weekend I saw them play magnificently and win promotion to the third division. I should like to place on record my congratulations—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying a long way from the subject. I am sure that he is competent enough to return to the subject of the market at Redbridge.
Mr. Cohen: I mentioned Leytonstone and Ilford merely to show the local connection. The two areas are close enough for the football team to cover both of them.

87
A London strategic planning authority would resolve conflicts between areas such as Ilford and Redbridge, and dealing with the question of markets would be one of its functions. I am not a great supporter of ancient charters being cast in iron for ever, such as the one that states that no market should be set up within 6¾ miles of another, which was drawn up by Henry III. I think it daft, however, that we have to depend on Parliament for such a provision to be waived. Parliament's time should not be wasted; such disputes should be sorted out by a strategic planning authority.
Mr. Bendall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even in the days of the GLC a Bill would have been needed?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, but the conflict would have been sorted out long before now. Because the GLC would have performed that function, we might well have been in a position to scrap the private Bill procedure in such cases and thus save hon. Members' time. Getting rid of that ancient charter could set a precedent in other areas where authorities want to build markets to which the charter would apply. We could be flooded with private Bills aimed at getting round the procedure. There could be an element of corruption. The market is financed by the Prudential and by Norwich Union to the extent of hundreds of millions of pounds. With the involvement of big business in such markets there is scope for corruption through bribing right hon. and hon. Members to push through private Bills, while that procedure operates.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As I understand legislation, compensation will be paid for Romford market as a result of the new market at Redbridge. However, markets compete not only with each other but with shopkeepers. Surely there should be a balance between compensation paid to other markets and to shopkeepers who will lose out by the development of Redbridge market, because shopkeepers pay rates whereas stallholders do not. The private Bill procedure is inappropriate when the matter should form part of strategic shopping plan for the whole of London. The lack of such a plan will cause chaos, with many different shopping centres competing with one another and with resources not being properly used.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A strategic authority would devise such a plan. My hon. Friend is also right about small shopkeepers losing out and not receiving compensation. If they want to make representations under the private Bill procedure, they must incur enormous expense. They may feel that the matter is cut and dried anyway, so there is little point. However, they would have incurred no expense in contacting their GLC councillor or a strategic authority for shops policy.
Under the expensive private Bill procedure, the democratic right to object is being placed beyond the bounds of people who have genuine cause for complaint, and who might receive compensation if they did. Perhaps one should not compare that situation with the recent events in China, which are of course horrendous, but in China too there is a struggle for democracy. The small shopkeepers are crushed not by tanks, thank goodness, but by the expensive and stupid private Bill procedure. It is in that way that their democratic rights are crushed.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend makes an important point about strategic planning and says that we should not hang around here talking about a matter that concerns his constituency and that it should be dealt with by a body such as the old Greater London council. I envisage that under a strategic authority there could be different types of market for different types of area. There could be a flea market in Finchley, a dead sheep market in the Foreign Secretary's constituency, and puppet markets in the constituency of every Cabinet Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Meanwhile, the debate should return to the subject of the market in Redbridge.
Mr Cohen: I recall my hon. Friend's remarkable comments about the Prime Minister cutting jelly babies in half to ensure that customers did not get any extra weight. There have been cuts ever since, but fewer cuts in Tory Redbridge than in Leyton, which has greater need for extra resources, including markets. Again we see the party political bias to which I referred earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) made a good point concerning Spitalfields market. The local communities make it possible for markets to make big profits. My hon. Friend rightly said that some of those profits should be returned to those local communities. Under the private Bill procedure, that cannot happen. Local communities are being robbed of enjoying an element of the profits that markets make.
The strategic authority, as well as devising better policies for shopping centres and for markets, could devise better policies for roads. Leyton would have had a much better deal over the M11 link road had a strategic authority been involved rather than the Department of Transport. My major concern is that the roads money from that Department will be soaked up in Redbridge market rather than go to Leyton to offset the effects of the road that the Department is blasting through the area.
Mr. Bob Cryer: As to planning access to markets, one of the problems confronting many local authorities, and one that the Bill may not take into account, is that the European Community is trying to force through, with the agreement of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, 40-tonne lorries instead of the present maximum of 38 tonnes. Clearly, any local authority must consider that serious departure from existing regulations before presenting any Bill to the House in which road access is a factor.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will not wish to respond to a matter that is not within the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Cohen: That is perfectly true, Madam Deputy Speaker, except that road access is relevant to many markets. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is horrendous that the Government have again given in to the Common Market and to big business interests. If Redbridge market develops and grows bigger, it may have to be served by larger lorries. In those circumstances, the road network serving the market may not be suitable. Redbridge will then tell the Department of Transport, "Give us the money. The heavy lorries have destroyed the roads around here. We have a market here and we deserve that money." Again, that will put the kibosh on Leyton and on extra money to counter the adverse environmental effects of the new link road. Leyton has already been robbed of its

89
forests by the Government and of money to improve the environment. Now we shall get stuffed up again by 40-tonne lorries because money for new roads will be given only to Redbridge.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend say what consultations there have been between the boroughs involved and the police authorities about policing the market? In some areas .a substantial volume of goods shoplifted from ordinary shops ends up on market stalls.
Mr. Cohen: I have not received any specific information from the supporters of the Bill, but my hon. Friend makes a fair point and perhaps the Bill's sponsor will be able to answer it. I do not really like the black economy in which street markets operate, but if they can get goods off the back of a lorry, to use the colloquial term, that probably has a beneficial effect because good quality goods can be sold cheap to people who are being hammered by Government policies, by high inflation, and by unemployment. Therefore, I can sympathise with that aspect of the black economy. I detest the other side of the black economy whereby the rich find all the loopholes and rake in millions of pounds.
I am not particularly worried about the black economy. One can get a blooming good bargain in some of the markets in east London. I recommend that my hon. Friend goes down there and gets a few bargains. The other day I came to the House in a suit that cost me only a fiver. It is a wonderful fit. Brick lane market is superb for second-hand clothes.
Mr. Cryer: The next time my hon. Friend buys a suit, will he make sure that it is made in the United Kingdom and that the wool comes from Bradford?
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the local markets sell suits made with wool from Bradford. The suit that I bought in Brick lane market for a fiver is a thorn-proof suit. Believe it or not, I saw a Government Minister on "Wogan" and as he sat down he flashed the label of his thorn-proof suit, so I did not know whether my suit once belonged to a Government Minister, but working-class people can get access to thorn-proof suits via markets and the black economy.
My key point concerns the road network. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Ilford, South set up a meeting last week with Mr. Price, the chief executive, and Mr. Bassett, the director of administration and legal services. They were most helpful. They gave me a verbal assurance that no new roads or road improvements are planned.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend should have got it in writing.
Mr. Cohen: I need to be absolutely convinced about that and I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will refer to it. If at any time, even under a Labour Government, Redbridge tried to fool a Labour Government by saying that it had a market and needed money for its roads, it should be on record that the borough has stated that it does not need the money and has not planned any expansion in the road network and that it should not be given priority. Leyton should get priority as the Government have stolen our forest and we have had the worst possible deal from the M11 link road with very poor environmental effect.
Mr. George J. Buckley: My hon. Friend stressed the necessity of increasing road services to the proposed market. I am not sufficiently local to know whether he is justified in making that point, but if more expenditure is necessary to improve the road services to the site of the market that would generate the need for more car parking to accommodate the increased traffic that will be generated by the establishment of the market. Is my hon. Friend convinced that there is adequate car parking in the locality to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic?
Mr. Cohen: I am not totally convinced that there will be sufficient car parking space as that will depend on the size of the market. Mr. Price was kind enough to give me a leaflet on Redbridge that refers to the market for Ilford and the Bill. The leaflet states:
"And work has started on a new shopping mall to provide some 100 shops, department store, food court and parking for 1,200 cars. This is due to open in 1991."
I do not know whether 1,200 car parking spaces will be sufficient, but clearly Redbridge has thought about it. The leaflet also talks about the road network and stales that:
"the A406—South Woodford to Barking Relief Road—opened in 1987."
So Redbridge already has those flash new roads. That emphasises my point that the money has already gone to Redbridge at the expense of Leyton and it would be quite horrendous if it received any more money.
I want to place it clearly on record that if Redbridge gets the market it should not get any more money for roads and that Leyton should be the first priority ahead of Redbridge. That point has to be rammed in, and that is why I object to the Bill.
Mr. Redmond: I do not know whether my hon. Friend had a meeting at the proposed site with the people whom he mentioned. He spoke about the verbal promise that he received. I would be slightly sceptical about accepting such a promise, as we do not know what the future will hold, especially if the market can expand. I am not quite sure where the site is, but perhaps my hon. Friend can inform me whether future expansion could take place by knocking down a few buildings. There is certainly some demolition taking place at Spitalfields market. The Bill talks about 60 or 80 sites, and I am not sure whether that could be increased to 100, 200 or 300. If the market expands, money will be required to ensure that local services meet the increased capacity. However, I do not know the area and would be grateful if my hon. Friend could help.
Mr. Cohen: There is always a danger of expansion. The Bill deals with the market stalls and, as far as I can see, the site appears to be quite limited. However, the enclosed mall and the food court to which I referred could spread and the parking problem could increase as could the pressure for roads to service the area.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that assurances are given by all sorts of people at various times as a matter of convenience to them? One certain way in which those assurances can be made hard and fast is by incorporating a clause or an amendment in the Bill. I wonder whether the chief executive would be prepared to say that he would incorporate into the Bill an amendment to make it a cast-iron guarantee which could be changed only by the Bill being amended in Parliament?
Mr. Cohen: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I am always grateful to hon. Members with much greater experience of such procedures, and the private Bill procedure is certainly archaic. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion; I had not thought of it. I would welcome a clause in the Bill making it clear that the priority for roads money should go not to Redbridge but to Leyton. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill, or even the Minister, will agree to such an amendment because Leyton certainly has had a bad deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that I should have got a written assurance from the chief executive about no new roads being needed. Mr. Price came to see me only at the end of last week so there has not been an opportunity for that. Mr. Price has served the London borough of Redbridge for a long time and I take him at his word, and he gave me that assurance and I have put it on record tonight. Mr. Price speaks not for himself but for Redbridge and its honour would also be at stake.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an abuse of the private Bill procedure for the promoters not to explore every opportunity to negotiate with anyone who has his name down in a block and to give assurances so that there is no need for a debate in the House? Hon. Members would prefer to debate some of the momentous events happening throughout the world rather than give time to private Bills. The tradition in the House is that, wherever possible, the promoters negotiate to avoid the need for a Second Reading debate, which again takes up hon. Members' time, and the possibility of amendments being moved on Third Reading.
Mr. Cohen: I made my objections to the Bill clear at the beginning of the Session, but I do not oppose it as strongly as I opposed the City of London (Various Powers) Bill whereby forest land was stolen and not replaced. I could have gone on all night protesting about that. I am concerned about how the road network will affect Leyton.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that sometimes people of integrity give assurances but that one chief executive can be replaced by another? The only way in which an assurance given in perfect faith and utmost honesty will stand the test of time is for it to be written on the face of the Bill. A new chief executive could legitimately say, "Nothing said by a previous office holder can bind me." The promoters should redraw the Bill so that an assurance can appear on the face of it.
Mr. Cohen: I hope that the promoters will take my hon. Friend's point on board. Given the limited time that was available, I could only assume that the chief executive was a man of honour and that he spoke for Redbridge. My only purpose in speaking is to place on record the fact that the chief executive gave me a cast-iron assurance.
Any money for roads should not be given to build a market. There are already prior claims on that money in Leyton, which has been done down by the Government, especially by the husband of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. She should be concerned about the environment and should kick him out of bed one evening and say "Leyton should be given the money ahead of Redbridge."
Mr. Redmond: I am a little concerned about the faith that my hon. Friend is placing in the word of the chief
92
executive, who no doubt is an honourable man whose word is his bond. However, chief executives come and go. In a short period, Doncaster has had two chief executives. A new chief executive may argue, "My predecessor should have said this or that." Hon. Members have experience of officers saying things that bind the passage of a Bill. An authority should include in the Bill any undertaking that it gives to an hon. Member.
Mr. Cohen: I bow to my hon. Friend's experience. Under the appalling private Bill procedure, I was consulted very late, but I look to the promoters to include on Third Reading the assurance that was given to me.
Mr. Skinner: That is a bit late.
Mr. Cohen: I know that it is a bit late, but that may be a solution if Redbridge does not want to go to the expense of withdrawing the Bill. I am clearly not in a position to table such a clause.
Mr. Cryer: Redrafting this part of the Bill would be the best way to proceed. It occurred to me while my hon. Friend was making his useful comments that under local government reorganisation—which can occur at any time under this Government, who are reorganising everything in sight to make it more difficult for ordinary people—if something is included in the Bill, which then becomes an Act, any successor organisation is obliged to take over the responsibility of the previous local government authority. An assurance from a chief executive of an authority that has disappeared or merged into another local authority is worthless, no matter how decent or honest the man or woman was who gave it. I urge my hon. Friend to consider the possibility of redrafting this part of the Bill to incorporate the assurance that he was given, because that is the only way it will stand the test of time.
Mr. Cohen: I take my hon. Friend's point, which has thrown me into a dilemma. I was given an assurance in good faith and I am prepared to believe it. Mr. Price is clearly an honourable man, and I merely wanted to get the assurance on the record.
Mr. Illsley: I should like my hon. Friend to bear in mind the example about which Labour Members have been speaking. In 1986, the Government abolished South Yorkshire county council, and any assurances given by it were made worthless. Local authority powers devolved to the district authorities of Doncaster, Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley. If that were to happen in London, the district authority might disagree with the policy of the previous authority, thereby scuppering any assurance given to my hon. Friend. Parliament is being asked to approve a Bill to give power to a local authority, but it should incorporate concrete assurances in the Bill.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has added to my concern. He has experience of assurances becoming worthless.
While my hon. Friend was speaking, I thought of a way round the problem. It would be best if the Minister said, "I am pleased to say to the hon. Member for Leyton that the Government can get round the problem and Parliament can get on and discuss the important issues of the day. We shall give Leyton all the money that it needs for its roads and environment as a result of the M 11 link road to prevent any squabbling." After all, we need to improve the environment on that link road. Leyton needs more parks, forests and open space. The Department of

93
Transport sold some that we had. Many people along that route are about to be made homeless and they deserve to be treated well by the Government.
The way out of the problem would be for Conservatives to help each other. The Government can help Redbridge to get the Bill through without incorporating a new clause if they put up the money for Leyton.
Mr. Skinner: I am a bit worried now. My hon. Friend has been making the point at length that he is a bit worried about undertakings given in a short meeting that he had last week, telling us, I think, that he had serious reservations about the market proposed in the Bill. Is my hon. Friend now saying that if he can get for Leyton what he did not get on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill he is prepared to have another look at the matter? I hope that he will clear up that important matter.
Mr. Cohen: I would not have objected to the Bill if I had thought that Leyton would not he adversely affected. If the money is put up for Leyton's roads and environment, I have no objection if, in a few years' time, a bit more money goes to Redbridge's roads. We shall have had ours in Leyton. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that point.
Mr. Skinner: It sounds mercenary to me.
Mr. Cohen: I can be a hit mercenary when I am fighting for my constituents, especially when they are being done down day after day by the Government. They have to rely on their markets to buy suits for £5, cheap food and towels from the Londonderry hotel. There are towels from the Londonderry hotel in markets throughout Britain and no doubt they will be found in this market.
Mr. Cryer: Many Opposition Members feel that the Government have abused the private Bill procedure by putting forward what is essentially Government legislation in the form of private Bills. For the Minister to intervene and say that a grant will be made to my hon. Friend's constituency, as my hon. Friend is suggesting, would be a further abuse of the private Bill procedure. I hope that my hon. Friend will re-examine the position. The best way to proceed would be to incorporate in the Bill the sort of assurance that he has sought and obtained from the chief executive rather than to rely on the Government intervening with offers of money. As my hon. Friend knows, Goverment money can carry many conditions and difficulties and he might find himself wishing that the Bill had been altered instead.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is doing a good job in persuading me, but I would take the money for my constituents. If the Minister said that we could have the money for parks and open spaces and for the families who would be made homeless, I would take it, even though my hon. Friend makes excellent constitutional points. The private Bill procedure is bankrupt anyway, and community profits do not go to the community, so I would take the money.
Mr. Skinner: Even if it was in ecus?
Mr. Cohen: Yes, because we have an excellent Member of the European Parliament, Alf Lomas, who might well be able to get them changed on his trips to the Common Market. He does great work in the local area. However, I shall not go further along that route.
94
I said that I would not speak for long, and I want to start to conclude.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Before the hon. Gentleman does so, I may be able to assist him on the procedure that we shall be going through later. I fear that my hon. Friend the Minister is unlikely to give the hon. Gentleman the money that he wants and there is a faint possibility that when we divide later we may fail to throw the Bill out at this stage, regrettable though that will be. However, the private Bill procedure allows Leyton to make representations to the private Bill Committee, when the point that the hon. Gentleman has made so forcefully could be put. At that stage, four of our colleagues will have the right to write that condition into the Bill. Should they do so, Redbridge council will be bound by it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should consider inviting his local authority to make representations to the Committee should it be necessary.
Mr. Cohen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful advice. I shall take it on board and ask my local authority to make those representations. Nevertheless, the Minister should put up the money for Leyton, because it is such a good cause and has been done down so often, and it would ease the Bill's passage.
Another area of concern was that when the M11 link road goes through Leytonstone high road should have the opportunity to be pedestrianised. The Bill relates to part of Redbridge being pedestrianised. Again, Redbridge is getting that first, or rather being the only one to get it, taking priority over Leyton which really needs it.
When the M11 goes through, Leytonstone high road could be pedestrianised, enhancing Leytonstone's shopping opportunities. We do not want Redbridge to have built up its market to such an extent that it stifles Leytonstone at birth and ruins its opportunities for pedestrianisation and the environmental improvements that would flow from that.
Mr. Price and Mr. Bassett of Redbridge referred to the theory of concentric shopping circles. I do not know whether my hon. Friends know about that. Basically, it boils down to some planner drawing a circle around one market and then around another further down the road. Anyone who lives in between the two circles or in the area where the circles overlap might go to either market—
Mr. Skinner: They would get dizzy.
Mr. Cohen: They would spend double the money.
I am not an expert on that new-fangled theory, but I should like Leytonstone to have its shopping facilities improved and to be pedestrianised so that we can draw a nice big circle around Leytonstone and improve the prosperity of my constituency. I would be worried if Redbridge took away that opportunity and ruined Leytonstone's prospects.
Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend refers to the theory of concentric circles which involves a circle being drawn around one market and then another, leaving an area in between. Does not the royal charter put a protective circle around the market to prevent another market from being placed there? Therefore, is not the concentric circle argument a little confusing?
Mr. Cohen: I recall Mr. Price and Mr. Bassett saying that communications had improved dramatically since the time of Henry III, when the distance to a market was

95
thought to involve a third of the day getting there, a third of the day shopping and a third of the day getting home, and I suppose that that comes into the 6¾ mile measurement.
We do not want markets springing up in close proximity to each other, with authorities competing unnecessarily and wastefully. The result will be markets going broke. We have seen that happen in other spheres, where local authorities have spent loads of money on advertising simply to compete with each other.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am intrigued by the concentric circle argument. Did Mr. Price tell the hon. Gentleman what he thought about the idea of having concentric circles within one circle? It is proposed that the Ilford circle should occur within the Romford circle. That does not seem to make economic sense.
Mr. Cohen: I agree, and it cannot make sense to have the concentric circles on top of each other. That brings me back to the need for a strategic planning authority, and it brings me to my final point, which is to oppose the idea of having markets virtually on top of each other. In that situation more markets will spring up and they will all go broke.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the original example, dating from 1247, provides an argument for having proper strategic planning? Will my hon. Friend develop the concept of strategic planning, which is essential if we are to make the best use of resources?
Mr. Cohen: I do not want to delay the House by going down that path, remembering that I have been careful strictly to address the issues concerning the market. My hon. Friend makes an important point about strategic planning because it must make sense to optimise resources, otherwise waste results. We do not want many markets in certain areas and none in rural and semi-rural areas, with those living in distant areas having to travel for miles to get their Londonderry hotel towels.
Mr. Barron: If my hon. Friend agrees that the 13th century example mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) represented one of the earliest forms of strategic planning, may I ask him to develop the point that it represented wide-ranging foresight on the part of those concerned in relation to housing?
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right, and the point he makes proves how important it is to have strategic planning in London and elsewhere, including Bradford. Any plan involving shopping areas must have housing in mind. Indeed, transport—not forgetting public transport—roads and all other forms of planning must be taken into account at the same time.
The trouble with the policies of the Government, including their use of the private Bill procedure, is that all of those considerations are the subject of chaos. They are left to market forces. They plan nothing in a co-ordinated way, and that leads to enormous waste.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend might care to reflect on the way in which some authorities will spend large sums of money establishing markets, with good facilities and so on, while others will spend less. If this is left to market forces,
96
some local authorities will find that their markets become less successful as competitor markets become more profitable. Ratepayers' money will have been spent on facilities, for stallholders and the public, which serve no useful purpose. Indeed, councillors might face being surcharged because of that waste of ratepayers' money.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes the point so well that I need not enlarge on it, except to remind the House that part of that expenditure will be on advertising. Once markets are so close—such as Romford and Ilford—that competition is enormous, but local authorities will spend ratepayers' money on advertising, competing against each other, in a chaotic way. The money will, no doubt, go to Saatchi and Saatchi, who will laugh all the way to the bank—
Mr. Barron: And from Saatchi and Saatchi to the Conservative party.
Mr. Cohen: —yes, and on to Tory party funds. That money could have been spent on housing.
Mr. Illsley: I will not delay my hon. Friend because a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I hope to have an opportunity later to comment on the royal charter that was awarded to my constituency. The document to which my hon. Friend referred showed that Ilford town centre will have a new shopping mall in addition to a new market. He pointed out that ratepayers' money will be spent on advertising if the market becomes run down.
In my constituency, part of a market was moved to become part of a market complex and shopping centre. The result was that the market competed with the shopping precinct, and the profits of both declined. Eventually the local authority was involved in heavy expense to improve the shopping mall and the market centre simply to re-establish the position that existed prior to the amalgamation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the case we are discussing, competition between the market and the shopping complex will lead the authorities into incurring considerable expense?
Mr. Cohen: That is another example of an intervention making the point. I need not add to what my hon. Friend said. It is another reason for having a strategic planning authority.
I shall resume my seat, having spoken about the road network and the need for the money about which we are speaking not to be spent on a market but to come to Leyton for the benefit of the people of the area.
8.38 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the roads of Leyton. I am grateful for the modest and short intervention that he made in the debate, in which he concisely made important points in favour of his constituency. I have no doubt that those matters will be pursued further if the Bill proceeds to another stage.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for a long time. We have served together on various Select Committees on Defence, and it is sad for me to be against him on this measure. He will forgive me for not being able to vote with him, in the light of the appalling shortcomings of the Bill which he has had

97
the misfortune to present to the House. I say that because the measure is full of flaws in terms of detail and construction.
On the face of it, it is a simple little Bill which appears to be harmless in asking for a market in Ilford. That would be the case if it were something that was taken in a vacuum, but in order to judge the merits of this Bill we have to do two things. First, we have to recognise the background against which it is being brought forward. The Romford market has been operating for something like 742 years and this Bill is in direct abrogation of the rights which the Romford market traders have enjoyed for the whole of that period. Secondly, we have to look at the detail of the Bill to see if in its construction it is a fair Bill and puts its case across adequately.
The key to that can be found in paragraph (2) on page 1, which reads:
"It would be of public and local advantage to provide for the establishment of a further market in the part of the borough known as Ilford notwithstanding the infringement or non-compliance thereby with any rule of law or enactment".
It cannot be very often that a Bill comes before the House announcing at the outset that it intends to flout existing laws and go against existing enactments to the detriment of people other than those for whom the Bill is being promoted. I therefore, to a degree, commend the honesty of the Bill in admitting at the outset that that is its purpose.
Not content with doing that, the Bill is even more explicit in clause 3, which sets out what the Bill is attempting to achieve. It reads:
"The Council may—

(1) establish a market within a distance of one mile from the town hall; and

(2) authorise, on such terms (whether financial or otherwise) as they think fit the establishment by others of a market within a distance of one mile from the town hall;".

So immediately we have a difference between what the Bill is seeking to achieve and that which perhaps its promoters would imagine people to perceive. They are not asking for one market in Ilford; they are asking for the right to set up two markets in competition with the one which exists in Romford.
The Bill goes on in that same clause to say:
"notwithstanding that the holding of such a market would interfere with any rights, powers or privileges enjoyed in respect of a market held by any other person."
That really is extraordinary and it is even more extraordinary because one has to take into account that it is couched in terms which beg the question whether it would interfere with any such rights. And the fact is that it demonstrably and on the face of the Bill is in direct conflict with such rights. I will come back to that point when I examine the terms of the Bill a little more closely.
I would like to take the House through the remaining clauses so that we have a complete picture of what is being put forward tonight.
Mr. Barron: Subsection (2) of clause 3 in fact says that it is asking for the right not to set up other markets owned by a London borough council but to set up markets owned by other people, who normally, as I understand the private Bill procedure, would have to do exactly what this council is doing at the present time—that is, make direct representations to set up a market within the area.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and I bow to his great knowledge of the private Bill procedure. It is extraordinary that the Redbridge
98
borough council should be trying to take upon itself the right to make such appointments not merely to itself, but to others, for their own financial gain, which would normally not be feasible without coming back to the House.
Mr. Barron: Not only that, but they are doing exactly as the hon. Member says without anybody having to come back to the House in future in terms of further developments in that area. It is the House that is losing out and not just the borough council.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is quite right and it is a very important point. The House has to be very careful when allowing powers to be taken from it and delegated to others. I do not believe in delegating such powers without keeping a residual authority within the House to look at again and amend whatever we may see being done under the provisions that we have approved. In this instance we would not have any further power as the House of Commons to take another look at a Redbridge market being set up by that council in a way of which we might thoroughly disapprove, nor would we have any say in who was adminstering such a market.
Clause 4 deals with compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South has been good enough to admit that this clause is inadequate. None the less, it would be doing the problems less than justice if the House did not look closely at what is proposed. We are not looking here at a draft, a Green Paper, something that has been put to the House for consideration in outline; we are looking at detailed proposals that are being put forward with the recommendation that they should pass into law.
If we pass this now, on Second Reading, we shall have no further powers under the private Bill procedure, unless amendments are made in the private Bill Committee, to look at this again on Report. That is something which is unique to the private Bill procedure, which makes it all the more important that matters are not lightly glossed over. Notwithstanding the undertaking that my hon. Friend has given that this can be looked at later, it may well be that it will not be and that we shall not be able to find an acceptable compromise solution later. There is a danger that if we failed to find such a solution by compromise or by procedures within the private Bill Committee this House, constituted as it is tonight, would not have a further chance of looking at the Bill.
Mr. Barron: The hon. Member makes a very good point. He will know that a private Bill is going through Parliament at the present time which has not just local but national importance because of this very point. The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill came back to the House unamended and dozens of hon. Members were very concerned indeed about its implications, yet we do not have the right to amend that Bill.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I restrict my remarks to what we are considering tonight. Certainly in regard to this Bill there is a danger that this could happen and that gives me grounds for concern.
Under clause 4 it is proposed that:
"If by virtue of the enactment of this Act, the value of the right conferred by statute or by Royal Charter to hold an existing market is diminished, the person in whom that right is vested shall be entitled to compensation from the Council as set out in subsection (2) below or as otherwise agreed with

99
the Council save that a local authority within the meaning of section 72 of the Act of 1984 shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of any rights, powers or privileges which they enjoy by reason only of the fact that they have established a market within their own district in the circumstances set out in subsection (3) of section 50 of the Act of 1984."
That is deeply significant in the context of this discussion because, as I will explain a little later, that clause does not cover the circumstances in which Romford market operates. Therefore it does not offer compensation to Romford borough council under its present terms.
Mr. Redmond: What has been said about the Bill being unamended in Committee is very important. The clause to which the hon. Member has referred talks about the local authority within the meaning of section 72 of the 1984 Act. I am sure that the hon. Member is aware that local government is going through tremendous changes and I do not see that stopping within the next couple of years. So any Acts affecting local government can be deleted, amended or whatever, and this will have a direct impact on what is stated in this section.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to be concerned about that. There are procedures whereby such new Bills try to amend or take into account existing legislation to which they refer. One of my more arduous and less enjoyable jobs in the House is to serve on the Committee considering the consolidation of Bills. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that involves looking very closely at new Bills which take into account old legislation and consolidate it. We have to be extremely careful that when that is done no change of law takes place inadvertently through the new wording.
There are procedures whereby the danger that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) fears can be averted, but it is a danger that needs to be watched for whenever new legislation is brought forward. The meaning of "the Council" under section 72 of the Food Act 1984, which I confess that I have not read, may or may not be too narrow in terms of those who have the powers to hold local markets. That is another matter to which we should turn our attention if further opportunity arises.
Subsections 4(2) and 4(3) deal with the measure of compensation. Again, I ask the House to pay attention to this because I have strong objections to it. They say:

"(a) The measure of compensation shall be the capitalised value of the estimated loss of income to the claimant from persons trading at his market resulting from the continuance or establishment of a market under this Act.

(b) Compensation under this section shall carry interest from the expiry of six weeks from the date on which the claim is received by the Council.

3. Except as otherwise be agreed by the Council, compensation under this section shall not be payable except upon a claim made in writing to the Council within three months of the commencement of this Act."
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South has admitted that that is an appallingly inadequate time in which compensation can be assessed, but I ask the House to consider how anybody could bring such a proposal before the House in the first place. It shows an appalling lack of regard for those who trade in Romford market and an almost arrogant disregard for the need to give adequate compensation when old, established rights are being taken away. That is certainly not in line with
100
anything that this Government would like to see done. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to distance herself from any such proposal, if she wishes to say anything about it now.
The timing of such compensation must be flexible and should be taken from a date at which such damage could conceivably be assessed. To say that the damage can be assessed within three months of the Act being passed, which will be before Redbridge market starts trading anyway, is ludicrous. Even supposing that Redbridge market can manage to start trading in that period, it will take a year or two before the impact of that market is fully felt at Romford. What will my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South say later to that, if he has the opportunity, as I hope that he will? What proposal will he be able to make that will adequately cover the point of giving properly assessed compensation at the right time to the council?
It is not, of course, only the council, or primarily the council in many instances, which will be the loser. The losers will be the 300-odd traders who have their market stalls in Romford. They have been established there for a long time and the Bill contains no proposal that compensation should be payable to them.
Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman has made the case that I was going to put. It is highly questionable whether the issue of compensation resulting from new retail outlets can be assessed at all, whether it involves a new market or a new shopping mall, which I understand that the town of Ilford will have in the next few years. The whole concept of compensation for the loss of retail trading is not well planned. There have been no major legal judgments on which an assessment could be based. Clause 4 is perhaps a sop, as is the proposal about compensation claims having to be made within three months. That is especially the case under the private Bill procedure. This Bill could go into Committee and two hon. Members could send it back unamended. It would then have to go through with the major defects that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is wholly correct. The Bill could go through with those defects and it would be appalling and unjust if it were to do so. Even if the Bill is amended, it is difficult, I agree, to assess compensation for the loss of retail trade. I am not aware of any great precedents for that, certainly not in the big world outside market trading. There is no previous history of such compensation within market trading because no previous Act has gone against existing rights under part III of the 1984 Act, or any similar rights before that. I may be wrong about that, but, to my knowledge, this matter has not arisen before. Clause 4 is an odd and inadequate clause. As presently drafted, it gives no compensation either to Romford council or to the traders who will lose out and it is, therefore, in the context of the Bill, wholly irrelevant and can be seen only as a red herring.
When I intervened earlier in the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton he said that there had been talk about a compromise on this point. I understand from my local authority that two compromises were offered of which that was one, but that they were offered on wholly unacceptable terms—namely, that the council should undertake not to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. The understanding was that if the Bill was opposed on Second

101
Reading, the offers of compromise would be withdrawn. Like the hon. Member for Leyton, I am here not as a preacher for my local council, but to represent my constituents. I find it odd, therefore, that Redbridge council should seek to put such terms on any compromise it may seriously have proposed. If it was serious about putting forward a compromise, it should not have been on terms that the local authority should try to gag local members of Parliament and prevent them from properly representing their constituents. That should not be encouraged by this House and should it prove to have been the case we shall have to ensure that it does not happen again. The compensation clause is, therefore, quite irrelevant to the Bill and the House should disregard it when deciding on whether the Bill should go through this stage.
Clause 5 says:
"A market established under this Act shall be deemed to have been established by the Council under Section 50 of the Act of 1984."
I want to make a technical point on that. I may be wrong as I am not a draftsman, but it seems to be an appallingly badly drafted Bill. It makes the claim that a market established under it should be established as follows:
"50.—(1) The council of a district may—

(a) establish a market within their district;

(b) acquire by agreement (but not otherwise), either by purchase or on lease, the whole or any part of an existing market undertaking within their district, and any rights enjoyed by any person within their district in respect of a market and of tolls,

and, in either case, may provide—

(i) a market place with convenient approaches to it;

(ii) a market house and other buildings convenient for the holding of a market.

(2) A market shall not be established in pursuance of this section so as to interfere with any rights, powers or privileges enjoyed within the district in respect of a market by any person, without that person's consent."
That is what section 50 of the 1984 Act says.
How can the promoters of the Bill purport to set up a market under the terms of that Act when in clause 3 of the Bill and elsewhere they propose precisely to set up a market without the consent of the people whose rights will be thus abrogated? This an appallingly bad clause in an appallingly bad Bill, which should be thrown out at this stage. If Redbridge really wants legislation passed, it should bring back a properly drafted Bill and have proper discussions with other concerned local authorities, rather than attempting to obtain such discussions by means that I would consider to be dubious. We could then re-examine the whole question.
Perhaps I may deal with the locus standi of Romford council, the borough of Havering and the three Members of Parliament who represent the area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, we in Romford have enjoyed our own markets for 742 years, which must make Romford one of the oldest established and most continual trading markets in the country. The market was originally set up under a writ issued by Henry III in 1247, under which he gave the right of a market in the Royal Manor of Havering-atte-Bower, which continues as the Romford market today. That market was the one which meets on Wednesday.
Romford also has the right to hold markets on Fridays and Saturdays. The Saturday market arises from what is called a "lost modern grant". For the benefit of those of my hon. Friends who are not lawyers, and indeed for the benefit of some who are—even as a lawyer, I confess that
102
I had to ask someone exactly what it meant—a "lost modern grant" is, in fact, a lost old grant. No one knows how the right was acquired because it was acquired so long ago and because it has been enjoyed continuously for so long, but the legal fiction is that at some stage someone granted the right. The "lost modern grant" is the basis on which the market is held. The rights of a market held under lost modern grant are as great as those of a market held under original writ. The Friday market is operated by Havering borough in exercise of its powers under part III of the Food Act 1984—on which Ilford and Redbridge so wrongly attempt to base their market operations.
We in Romford have the right to hold markets on three days of the week. That is significant. It means that we are not talking about taking away the rights of market traders who trade in Romford one day of the week and somewhere else the next. We are talking about taking away the rights to an exclusive area which have been enjoyed for a very long time by about 300 traders trading there three days a week. I suspect that those traders base a large part of their livelihood upon their operations in Romford market. The House must think carefully, therefore, before doing anything to undermine the security of their operations in Romford by passing a Bill in direct contravention of the arrangements that have pertained in our area for so long and in direct contravention of anything that has been done in this line before. I am advised that all other new markets set up under the 1984 Act have scrupulously observed the limits and boundaries of other markets that have been operating in the vicinity. We are not talking about following precedent or doing something that is normal in the course of market trading, negotiation and dialogue. We are talking about doing something that has never been done before. One would certainly not guess that from the way in which the Bill has been presented to the House.
I hope that we shall throw the Bill back where it came from and that, in due course, we shall have a chance to negotiate the position with Redbridge and perhaps find some way in which Romford could properly consent to a change in the present structure. If we do not give that consent—if that consent is not forthcoming for proper reasons—it would be wrong for the House to override the rights of the local borough of Havering in this way.
Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill should be withdrawn and that the London borough of Redbridge should hold proper discussions. The third paragraph of a letter signed by the chief executive of Redbridge says that major concessions have been discussed between the two local authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any such concessions and, if so, does he know whether his local authority is satisfied with them? The letter seems to suggest that it is.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: One thing that I certainly do know is that my local authority is not satisfied with the Bill as drafted, nor has it agreed any of the compromises that it was invited to agree. As I said earlier, the terms in which that invitation was expressed were wholly and rightly unacceptable to the local authority, and, indeed, undeliverable by it. Whatever the local authority may have said to me, I would in any case have taken whatever view I considered to be right in the interests of my constituents. I know that there were negotiations and that at some stage

103
the local authority agreed some of the points, but it certainly did not agree to the Bill in its present form or to the compromises mentioned earlier.
I am concerned that the interests of my constituents, the local traders and those who have enjoyed the facilities of Romford market for so long will be gravely endangered if this Bill is allowed to reach the statute book. I hope that when we vote in about an hour's time the House will take the view that the Bill should not be sent upstairs to Committee.
When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton I said that I was afraid that there would not be any acceptable new clauses or amendments during Committee that would allow the Bill to return to the Floor of the House for further discussion on Report. That must be seriously considered because, unlike the usual procedure for Bills, there will be no further opportunity—other than for the four hon. Members who will consider the Bill upstairs in Committee—to consider possible compromises that would enable those of us who represent the interests of Romford—
Mr. Skinner: If Mr. Speaker accepts a closure motion, even though there are still a number of hon. Members wishing to speak, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his hon. Friends because two of the four hon. Members who will consider the Bill upstairs will represent the majority—if there is a majority in favour tonight—and it is important that they are distanced from the arguments. Our recent experience of certain private Bills, such as the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, is that hon. Members were not allowed to table amendments on what, under the normal Bill procedure, would have been Report stage.
Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I want the Bill to proceed to its next stage. I am certainly not happy about the private Bill procedure. The hon. Gentleman should use his best endeavours with his hon. Friends, including those in favour of planned, strategic organisation of markets as opposed to market forces—there may not be many of those in the Tory party, but there are certainly more now than there used to be—to ensure that there are two hon. Members on the Committee who will allow justifiable amendments so that the House can have another bite at the cherry on Report.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow his general points, although I agree that it is highly desirable that there should be people of an independent mind—and I am sure that there will be—who will properly and closely consider whatever is put before them. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the judgment of two, three or four Members of Parliament resulting in a final decision is very different from a full discussion in the House with all hon. Members able to make their points on the relevant amendments.
If the Bill proceeds to its next stage, it is important that those appointed to serve on the Committee read what has been said during this debate and take on board the fact that not by any stretch of the imagination could the Bill be said to have the support of those hon. Members present tonight.
I wish to deal with three generalisations that have arisen during the debate. The first is what the catchment area should be around the market. My hon. Friend the Member
104
for Ilford, South informed us that the distance of 6⅔ miles dates from Roman rule. I know that the market dates from Henry III, but the catchment area obviously dates back a lot further than that. I do not follow the logic of what he tries to persuade us, which is to the effect that because the distance was 6⅔ miles in the days when people could not get about, it should now be much smaller when people can get about more easily. I would have thought that the logic was the reverse and that, in order to protect the trade and the interests of those who live in the vicinity, such a radius might be extended rather than made smaller.
The second point is about whether it is an unfair restraint of trade for Romford to say that it has had the right for so long and that it should preserve it, never mind the interests of Redbridge. I am prepared to make that point because it can be raised legitimately as an argument against me. I reject the logic of that because we have 300 traders trading in Romford and we cannot sensibly talk about restraint of trade when 300 people are competing with each other.
Sometimes my party gets in a muddle on this. I think that we could draw a parallel between my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and the policy of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on brewers. It does not seem to be compatible with Conservative philosophy that people who have built up their businesses over many years—200 years in the case of some brewers and by tradition at least 200 years for some of the family interests that have traded regularly at Romford—should lose their business, with no compensation being offered. I was very glad to hear some Opposition Members voicing similar opinions.
Mr. Barron: I do not know whether Opposition Members would go all the way with the hon. Gentleman on compensation for the brewing industry which makes the biggest contribution to Conservative party funds.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I understand that that might be a reason for Opposition Members not to go along the same road as me, but I am sure that they would have other and better reasons, were they to take an opposite line. I am sure that they would not allow narrow party political bias to override their natural desire to look after the public interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South referred in his opening remarks to the applications that he has had. He told the House that he has had 240 applications for stalls at Redbridge. [Interruption.] That is the very point; the sedentary intervention asks how many of those have come from Romford. I too should like to know that. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me how many of the applications are from people who already have stalls in Romford market.
It may be that all that we will do, should the Bill go through, is to move the trade down the road from where it is well established. Even if that does not happen, the historical justification for the laws that have been in force for nearly 800 years is that there is only a limited amount of business to be done in these areas. If we are to have an efficient service in the public interest and if we are to look after consumers and safeguard the livelihood of the traders, we must have safeguards such as exist under the writ of Henry III.
I invite the House to throw the Bill out at this stage. Should there unfortunately be inadequate numbers

105
listening at the moment to hear what the argument is about, I hope that at a later stage hon. Members will read the debate and make their own judgment.
9.13 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: The longer I listen to the debate, the more convinced I am that the many objections that we have heard to the Bill are justified. We have heard of the many detrimental effects that the Bill would have not just on street traders in Romford but on the local shopkeepers in the communities where markets exist. Such points make Opposition Members very concerned about the Bill. It must also be said that there are strong objections, not least because it sets a precedent. If we really are talking in the absence of total strategic planning, which was a point well highlighted during the earlier stage of the debate, we shall make even more problems for ourselves in local government.
We have heard that there are flaws in the Bill. As a relatively new Member of the House, I do not consider myself as being someone who is as learned in parliamentary procedure as many of my hon. Friends, but, even so, it is clear to me from what has been said that there are flaws. The problems that would ensue, if the Bill went to Committee and we were not able to make amendments to it, should be considered when we vote later.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), in whose constituency the proposed market lies, that it would be to local and public advantage. I would like to ask him to whose local and public advantage he referred. Was he referring to the developers and the large retailers, who will presumably, as a result of market forces, be taking profits from the new development and from the shopping precinct which is being developed, or to the stallholders, and the local people, who will probably find it inconvenient to go into Ilford to shop in the proposed new market? Many comments have been made about the lack of proper provision for highways, for transport and for all the other planning matters that should be taken on board when considering the Bill.
From conversations that I have had with elected members in Redbridge, I know that the planners have not even been able to arrange for bus stops to work properly. I have heard stories of 13 buses stopping at the same bus stop. I do not have any confidence, therefore, that the necessary considerations have been taken on board. Various aspects, especially the fact that there is no strategic planning that could reconcile the conflicting views and pressures, lead the Opposition to oppose the Bill.
Unlike the rest of the country, it must be said that the south-east has never benefited to any great extent from the municipal reforms that provided for the building and operating of so many excellent indoor markets, with all the proper facilities of fair, healthy, hygienic and safe trading. I believe that in our discussions so far on markets, whether indoor or outdoor, we have not shown any concern about the whole infrastructure which goes into supporting a market, such as the cleansing operations. Instead the south-east and even urbanised areas of London have suffered from a crude and opportunistic free-for-all. In what was known as inner London, the late-lamented Greater London council managed to control street trading and similar markets by means of its general powers, which were enforced by the boroughs. In outer London the
106
historic town centres, of which Kingston and Romford are good examples, had the long-established market rights dating back to time immemorial about which we have heard so much this evening.
We have before us what is in all repects a grubby little Bill, which is designed to upset the pattern of history in the interests—I have to say it—of commercial opportunism.
I understand from the sponsors of the Bill that they have seen fit to allocate £50,000 and £4,000 a month plus expenses for their lobbyists. Their proposal is obviously not so simple and clear-cut as it seems, or as the hon. Members supporting the Bill would have us believe. We were told that the petition had 6,000 signatures. I understand that many people did not institute the petition of their own accord. They signed their names when the major retailers thought that it would be in their commercial interest to get the petition under way.
I take great exception to the comments about tatty old markets which, we have been told, are out of date and have no place in modern market policies. Any former councillor who has been involved in local government knows that the operation of retail markets is not merely a matter of providing some space for a few traders. There are complicated implications for all local shopping facilities —parking, cleansing, hygiene, consumer safety and regulation.
I do not know whether the Minister intends to contribute to the debate. I noted a recent report in The Independent of her visit to the Lambeth Walk street market. I am sure that she has had ample opportunity during the Vauxhall by-election campaign to see for herself how the once thriving street market in Lambeth Walk has been laid to waste by developers and the competition of other shopping centres. That factor must be taken on board.
The Bill will allow Redbridge council to set up a market in Ilford or, to be more precise, will allow private interests to do so, with the blessing of their friends on the council. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and I wonder whether he has misinterpreted clause 3(2). Is that subsection all about setting up two markets or does it enable the council to invest in the market and then ensure that it is quickly privatized, which means that we are talking about one market? I say that with some trepidation because the council is spilt on this issue.
Anyone who has done his or her homework will know that it is not a matter of bringing before the House a Bill that has the full support of the large Conservative majority on the council. My information is that at least one third of the Conservative councillors do not support it—hardly a portent of success or widespread support within the community. Hon. Members who said that they felt bound to speak on behalf of their constituents should not necessarily be judged by council decisions. I am sorry that there are not a large number of hon. Members present to make it clear that this proposal does not have the 100 per cent. support of the Conservative majority on Redbridge council.
I can, however, well understand why multiple retailers and Ilford developers want the attraction of choice and interest for shoppers in one of those up-market markets about which we have heard. Unfortunately, this is bound to detract from support for small retailers trying to get a

107
foothold in the economy. Many people and many small shops near the existing market stand to lose much if the Bill is passed.
The Bill's sponsors need to be alerted to the fact that the demise of small shops will reduce the business rate income —an important point which has not been noted. In inner London and the east end, there are many streets and shops where business income has been greatly reduced. The introduction of a substantial six-day week market in the centre of Ilford is also bound to create a loss of trade, not only to places such as Romford, but to the local shopping centres and markets of Redbridge and its adjoining boroughs.
I have a letter from the National Market Traders Federation. We must take into account the concern that some of us have for those who trade in the Romford markets. The letter states:
"The traders are opposed to new markets, as they have built up their businesses under strict rules and procedures. When they first attended Romford market they had to stand in the casual queue with no certainty of getting a stall. As they progressed up the list by regular attendance they gained a stall every week but not in the same place. After a period of up to eight years on the casual list they finally obtained a regular stall and further service on the market allowed them to transfer to better stalls as they became vacant."
That is the practice by which markets all over the country have become established, and the process by which traders have built up their livelihood. We should think carefully about removing their livelihoods when the clauses in the Bill which deal with compensation are, as the hon. Member for Upminster said, grossly inadequate.
The federation also brought to my attention the fact that
"Romford, in common with other well-run markets, has strict conditions attached to the trader's 'licence' which restricts traders as to what they can sell and they are also required to trade in a responsible manner."
Anyone who is familiar with local markets will be aware of that. I am concerned about the proposal contained in clause 3(2) which could hand over the responsibility of running the markets to private developers.
As the federation states:
"Private operators are not always responsible in the way that they run their markets and do not enforce strict trading practices to protect the shopping public and a 'bad' market at Ilford could reflect badly on the responsible traders at Romford."
That is an important point, which is worth making.
The Bill is not specific about the site of Ilford market. I understand that a site has been earmarked already. I stand to be corrected on that, but I understand that the site is within one mile from the town hall. As usual of late, the site is, at present, a car park. Hon. Members will therefore ask how a loss of parking spaces can be reconciled with the hope, expressed earlier, for an increase in shoppers. We must also question the provisions of other related matters.
I have a copy of a letter from David C. Humble and Company, independent financial advisers, who wrote to the director of land management of Redbridge council, objecting in the strongest possible terms to a planning proposal which is, I understand, currently under consideration and which would take away one existing car park to make way for a large scale office development. The company is expressing concern about the status quo and
108
the lack of car parking facilities in Ilford. If we are to lose that car park, we should be concerned about the loss of a car park which is to be the very site of the market.
We must also question the provisions for proper food hygiene, refuse storage and disposal, storage of barrows and stores. Anybody who knows anything about street markets, especially if they have been local councillors, knows of the many complaints about street traders who infringe on the amount of space and parking space available and the times when it is possible to deliver to market stalls. Even traders' vehicles will occupy a substantial area of car parking which is, at present, available to shoppers. I wonder whether these detailed items have been taken into account.
We are talking about two issues: whether we are setting a national precedent and whether there are special circumstances in which we should not support the Bill. I submit that the problems that I have mentioned, coupled with the difficult access to the site, constitute a strong case against the Bill.
Opposition Members might be more inclined to support the Bill if it provided for a well-thought-out scheme with some evidence of the strategic planning of which we heard so much from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), relevant to shopping in east London and to all the environmental and planning implications. As far as I can see, the Bill merely offers those who live or work in the area the prospect of traffic chaos, dirt, disruption and widespread adverse effects for shoppers as well as established market traders. The Bill —which Redbridge council no doubt sees as a model of late 20th-century enterprise—is no more than a grubby piece of opportunism from the flog-it-off, get-rich-quick school of politics.
Mr. Barron: The free market.
Ms. Walley: The free market, indeed.
I have learnt not to expect any concern for the environment or the health and safety of the public from such people, but in this instance they have exceeded themselves by not even caring about the effects on other traders or the wider interests of shoppers. That is reflected in the number of technical flaws in the Bill.
I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and others, who have pointed out to me that the Bill's enactment would represent a major departure from a nationwide policy of many years' standing. Regardless of the position in Redbridge, the Opposition are anxious to avoid the creation of a precedent that would allow the Conservative car park groups to exploit similar opportunities in constituencies all over the country, many of which have excellent retail markets established by people who knew what municipal improvement and initiative really meant. How sad and how significant that, instead of organising strategic planning for London and for councillors who look to the future health and welfare of their boroughs, the House must now spend its time considering a Bill whose sole purpose is to maximise the commercial value of a car park.
9.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of the Government's view. It is, of course, for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford,

109
South (Mr. Thorne) to respond to the detail of the debate, but it can fairly be said that, whatever the outcome, many of us will wish to take the opportunity of visiting the Romford charter market. A number of hon. Members were not aware that the market is 742 years old. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), has been present throughout the debate but, because of his ministerial status, has been unable to participate. No doubt we shall be visiting his constituency to see the market.
Long-established charter rights such as this can be set aside only by Act of Parliament, and it is for Redbridge to persuade Parliament that the powers that it seeks are justified. It is traditional for the Government to take a neutral stance on private Bills, and tonight's Bill is no exception to that rule. The Government have considered its content and have no objections in principle to the powers sought by the council. The Department has raised no observations; we take the view that the issues raised in relation to markets and existing market rights are local matters in which the Government do not wish to intervene.
There is one petition against the Bill, and the petitioner will have an opportunity to present his objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine the issues in detail, and will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence—not that I wish to suggest that many of tonight's contributions have not been expert in their various ways.
I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed to Committee in the conventional way for detailed consideration.
9.34 pm
Mr. Martin Redmond: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the Chamber since seven o'clock this evening, apart from nipping out to do some photocopying, and have endured the no-smoking rule that applies in it. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak briefly, because I certainly intend to allow the sponsor of the Bill to answer some of the points raised this evening.
I take exception to a remark made earlier by a Conservative Member who has now left the Chamber to the effect that if one is a Labour Member of Parliament serving a constituency having a Labour-controlled local authority, one should not make any remarks that are contrary to that local authority's wishes—and that the same applies to Conservatives. I have an excellent relationship with my own local authority, but we disagree from time to time on one or two issues.
The Minister stated that the Government have no preference either way but that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, and that anyone who intends opposing it will leave disappointed when the votes are counted. It is obvious from previous debates that private Bills which have the Government's support and which are the subject of Government whipping enjoy a majority vote in favour of them.
The Bill represents the thin end of the wedge. It cannot be considered in isolation. If the Bill receives a Second Reading it will have a domino effect on other markets throughout the country, which will come under fire from people out to make a fast buck and a quick profit—and to hell with long-term planning. Doncaster could find itself in
110
such a situation. It has a historic market on the site of the old Roman road. I do not doubt for one moment that the existing market at Romford provides similar excellent facilities. Doncaster market offers fresh fruit, vegetables and fish, haberdashery, and other goods. It is protected by the rule that does not permit another market nearer than 6⅔ miles. If that rule were waived, it would have a tremendous effect on Doncaster market. That is one of the reasons why I am very concerned about getting shot of the royal writ to which the Bill refers.
Under the Bill, the only thing that is certain is that the old royal writ will disappear and that another market will be established nearer than 6⅔ miles away from Romford. The Bill makes no mention of improved commerce or of any other positive element. It is no use people arguing that the Bill will not have a knock-on effect in other areas, because that will be the case once a precedent is set in this Chamber.
Reference has been made to good strategic planning. If a bad planning decision is made, future generations will have to live with it. There are examples in Yorkshire and in other parts of the country of that happening, where subsequent generations have faced a host of problems as a consequence of someone making an adverse planning decision.
In Doncaster we have an excellent market and an abattoir which serves farmers for miles around. Quite rightly, the local authority seeks to protect the market. There are also other markets outside the 6⅔ miles. The market at Mexborough is an excellent little market and should certainly be protected. Unfortunately, within our avaricious society many car boot sales have been springing up throughout my area, causing all sorts of problems for local residents becauses the increased traffic does nothing to enhance local villages. The towns in my constituency have suffered many problems due to car boot sales.
I want to allow time for the sponsor of the Bill to respond to the debate, but I should mention briefly the petition which carries 6,500 signatures. A few weeks ago I handed in to 10 Downing street a petition against the poll tax and that had many more signatures, but I do not suppose that the Prime Minister even saw that petition and if she did I am sure that she took no notice of it. The petition to which the hon. Gentleman referred is, therefore, of no concern because the people who signed it want the market and intend to exploit it and profit from it, but no doubt there is also a petition from those who do not want the market within than 6⅔ miles.
I hope that the House will reject the Bill as it upsets the fundamental principle of the distance of 6⅔ miles. There is enough greed in society without the House endorsing more greed. I have examined the promotional leaflet that Redbridge council has handed out. There certainly seems to be a large number of car parks. Perhaps Redbridge should have planned more stores and other premises that attract business. The borough council appears to be more concerned with car parks, and perhaps it will have too many car parks without sufficient cars to fill them. That emphasises that good planning is needed to ensure that everything is orderly in future.
The Bill causes great concern. I am not satisfied that certain things will not happen if the Bill is given a Second Reading. I am not quite sure about the safety factor. It would appear from the promotional leaflet that the market stalls will be under a viaduct. The sponsor will probably correct me, but occasionally we get bad weather and I

111
would hate to be a customer of one of those stalls when an articulated lorry went over the top of the market. It has been said that the market was hemmed in and that there could be no expansion for the 68 stalls. Although the map does not give all the finer details, if I had a few million pounds and wanted to add another 60, 80 or 100 stalls, I could certainly find room to do so. Therefore, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) who spoke against the Bill had every right to be concerned. We do not want people chasing a cake that is becoming smaller and ending up with no living at all. We have a duty to protect the existing market stalls that are there by royal charter. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will allay my fears about the possible knock-on effects of the Bill. People outside are waiting to move in to exploit certain circumstances.
Doncaster is a first-class market town. People enjoy visiting it because of its compactness. When I was on the local authority, it used to wish that a certain organisation was in Timbuktu. I must admit that I was a bit of a philistine at that time, but markets have changed, and those that have built up over the centuries have charm and character. No matter how clean and tidy a new market is, it will not have the character and flavour of a centuries-old market. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will think again and will withdraw the Bill until such time as the points made by hon. Members can be satisfied.
9.45 pm
Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer as many questions as I can. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was concerned that the Bill would circumvent the planning process. I reassure him that it must still go through the normal planning procedure.
As the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said, the market is partly under a road. It would therefore be quite unsuitable for a football pitch, as was suggested earlier. I shall return to the points made by the hon. Member for Don Valley later.
The strategic plan for Redbridge, which was introduced in 1980, included provision for a market. It was therefore very much on the cards when the Greater London council was in existence. I have no reason to suppose that if that authority had been in existence it would have objected to its promotion now.
Retailers are in favour of the market. I have not been approached by any retailer who is not in favour of it. Local traders and the local chamber of trade were responsible for the petition. It is not a parliamentary petition but merely an expression of support for the Bill. It is not couched in parliamentary terms, so it will not therefore be put in the Bag. I was not a party to it, but if I had been I would have offered certain advice. Local traders and the local chamber of trade did it on their own initiative, and in the time available they did very well.
Rates and competition with shopkeepers were mentioned. These are taken into account by the level of charges for a market stall. Rent for stalls will be paid to the local authority, and this will benefit ratepayers.
Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about rents being paid to the local authority. In the foreseeable future, a substantial part of those rents will be used to offset the capital costs of
112
construction and development work. In reality, for a considerable period thereafter, there will be no significant benefit to the ratepayers of the borough.
Mr. Thorne: I do not agree. A shop must be fitted and equipped, and inevitably there is a contribution towards the costs of constructing a market stall. I do not foresee that being a major proportion of the cost. The ratepayers' investment will be well worth while.
The police were consulted. A car park which will take 1,400 cars is now under construction and that will more than make up for the 60 car places which will be displaced by the development.
The hon. Member for Leyton spent a considerable time expressing concern about the availability of funds for roads in his area. He was given an assurance by Mr. Price, the chief executive of the London borough of Redbridge, that there are no plans to spend further money on roads in Ilford town centre in the foreseeable future. Mr. Price cannot bind his successors or the council into the distant future, but there is no question that Ilford town centre will in any way be competing for funds now with the London borough of Waltham Forest for Leyton and Leytonstone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) expressed concern about the number of markets and compensation. I have already given an undertaking that compensation will be calculated six months from the time at which the market is opened, not six months from the Bill being enacted.
Mr. Barron: Is there any legal precedent for people being compensated for the loss of retail trade? Has the relevant clause, on which I have so far been unable to speak, any precedent in law?
Mr. Thorne: Not that I know of. The compensation is payable to the London borough of Havering. It is there to compensate for any effect that there might be on its market, about which it was concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned negotiation between local authorities. As I understand it, there has been a singular lack of negotiation or response to negotiation from his local authority. His remarks this evening have gone further than any previous negotiations in that regard. If the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight, as I hope that it will, there will be an opportunity for further negotiation. That is what should happen before the matter reaches an opposed Bill Committee. I am sure that Redbridge will want to obtain as much agreement as possible.
I have every confidence that the four hon. Members appointed to an opposed Bill Committee would view the matter in an unbiased way. I have served on such Committees myself in the past and I well remember the undertaking that has to be given. I have always been extremely impressed by the way in which Opposition Members have looked at such matters in an impartial way and have done their best, together with Conservative Members, to reach a proper and fair decision.
I have explained in some detail how the figure of 6⅔ miles was arrived at. The proposed market will be 5¼ miles away and that seems to me to be a fair distance. I believe that it will have no effect upon the market in Romford. As I have said, there were 250 applications. A survey has been carried out by some experts, G. L. Hearn and Partners,

113
who expressed the opinion that the effect on Romford market would be negligible, and I believe that that is correct.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) expressed such a negative attitude to the Bill. As I said earlier, it is important to give people an opportunity to start in business. It would be wrong to stop people fulfilling the entirely laudable aim of trading on their own from a market stall when they cannot afford the expense of a shop. Marks and Spencer and British Home Stores started in just that way.
It has been said that the Bill has many flaws. I do not accept that the measure is in any major way different from the majority of Bills that come before the House. Corrections must often be made, and the Committee is the correct place for them to be made.
Reference was made to the question of food hygiene. The stalls will be subject to the same regulations as the stalls that at present exist in the Romford market.
The hon. Member for Don Valley wondered whether petitions were of any value. I disagree with him wholeheartedly on that issue. I believe that petitions have a valuable role to play as an expression of opinion. I am sure that due note was taken of the petition that he presented.
Mr. Redmond: I am pleased to hear that. I hope that when, in the not too distant future, I present another petition, I will be able to count on the hon. Gentleman's support.
Mr. Thorne: As I say, due note is taken of petitions, even though we do not always get the result we would like. I am convinced that it is worth putting in a petition on all occasions as an expression of opinion.
My answer to remarks that were made about the question of greed is that this land is owned by the local authority. Thus, what is proposed will benefit the ratepayers as a whole.
I cannot say what safety factors exist in connection with vehicles crossing the bridge which goes over the railway. That was designed and paid for by the GLC, and I am sure that the GLC looked carefully into the question of safety at the relevant time.
I was asked about the number of people who had signed the Romford petition. I counted over 100 names with addresses in Romford in the time available to me. I regard that as significant. There were a number of others from East Ham and elsewhere.
This is a modest Bill. It proposes a site within one mile of Ilford town centre, which is well built up. Only a small number of sites are available there. A modest number of stalls could be sited on this piece of land. I cannot see how it can be claimed that that would have an adverse effect on Romford market.
I have received a letter from a Mrs. Norris who lives in Romford. It was addressed to the public relations officer of the London borough of Redbridge. She writes:
"Dear Sir, I read in our local paper that Romford market stallholders are going to complain about your wanting to open a market. I feel that these stallholders have got a damned cheek, when I am told that many of them go to other markets on 'no market' day here. You should look into this, and when the Redbridge Bill is read in the House, somebody who is able should have their say for the people of Redbridge and the east London side of Romford. Hope you succeed. Yours truly."
114
That lady has the right idea. She believes that there should be competition and a full opportunity for people to have the chance of a wide variety of trading. I therefore urge the House to give the Bill a Second reading.
9.58 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not wish to delay the House and I must at the outset declare that I do not have a constituency interest in the issue, although I have a passing interest in the number of private Bills that come before the House. My comments will, therefore, go somewhat wider that the subject matter of the Bill.
Mr. Thorne rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 92.

Division No. 222]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Grist, Ian

Alton, David

Ground, Patrick

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Ashby, David

Hague, William

Aspinwall, Jack

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Atkins, Robert

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Beith, A. J.

Hannam, John

Bellingham, Henry

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bendall, Vivian

Harris, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Haselhurst, Alan

Benyon, W.

Hawkins, Christopher

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hayward, Robert

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Boswell, Tim

Hind, Kenneth

Bottomley, Peter

Hordern, Sir Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Howard, Michael

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

Brazier, Julian

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Bright, Graham

Howells, Geraint

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Irvine, Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Jack, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Jackson, Robert

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Janman, Tim

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Kennedy, Charles

Crowther, Stan

Key, Robert

Curry, David

Kilfedder, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dorrell, Stephen

Kirkhope, Timothy

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kirkwood, Archy

Durant, Tony

Knapman, Roger

Fallon, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Favell, Tony

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fearn, Ronald

Knowles, Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lang, Ian

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lawrence, Ivan

Forth, Eric

Lee, John (Pendle)

Franks, Cecil

Lightbown, David

Freeman, Roger

Lilley, Peter

French, Douglas

Livsey, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Gill, Christopher

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Gow, Ian

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Maclean, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Gregory, Conal

Major, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

115

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Ryder, Richard

Maude, Hon Francis

Sackville, Hon Tom

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Mills, Iain

Shaw, David (Dover)

Miscampbell, Norman

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mitchell, Sir David

Speller, Tony

Moate, Roger

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Steel, Rt Hon David

Moore, Rt Hon John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Morrison, Sir Charles

Summerson, Hugo

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mudd, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thornton, Malcolm

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thurnham, Peter

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Page, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Paice, James

Twinn, Dr Ian

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Patnick, Irvine

Wallace, James

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Waller, Gary

Pawsey, James

Warren, Kenneth

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wheeler, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Widdecombe, Ann

Portillo, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Price, Sir David

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Redwood, John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Riddick, Graham

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rost, Peter

Mr. James Arbuthnot and

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Mr. Tim Devlin.

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Armstrong, Hilary

Lamond, James

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Leadbitter, Ted

Barron, Kevin

Lewis, Terry

Battle, John

Loyden, Eddie

Bermingham, Gerald

Macdonald, Calum A.

Bidwell, Sydney

McFall, John

Blunkett, David

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Malins, Humfrey

Buckley, George J.

Marek, Dr John

Caborn, Richard

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Callaghan, Jim

Meacher, Michael

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Meale, Alan

Canavan, Dennis

Michael, Alun

Carrington, Matthew

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Miller, Sir Hal

Clay, Bob

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Clelland, David

Nellist, Dave

Cohen, Harry

Neubert, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Norris, Steve

Cousins, Jim

Patchett, Terry

Cryer, Bob

Pike, Peter L.

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dalyell, Tam

Redmond, Martin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Richardson, Jo

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

Rogers, Allan

Dixon, Don

Rowlands, Ted

Duffy, A. E. P.

Skinner, Dennis

Eadie, Alexander

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Eastham, Ken

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

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Steinberg, Gerry

Flynn, Paul

Stott, Roger

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Strang, Gavin

Foster, Derek

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Turner, Dennis

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Vaz, Keith

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Walley, Joan

Haynes, Frank

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hinchliffe, David

Wareing, Robert N.

Home Robertson, John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Winnick, David

Illsley, Eric

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Jones, Barry (Atyn & Deeside)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

116

Worthington, Tony

Tellers for the Noes:

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mr. Richard Shepherd and

Mr. Ian McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 88.

Division No. 223]

[10.14 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Alton, David

Irvine, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Jack, Michael

Aspinwall, Jack

Jackson, Robert

Atkins, Robert

Janman, Tim

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Beith, A. J.

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Kennedy, Charles

Bendall, Vivian

Key, Robert

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kilfedder, James

Bevan, David Gilroy

Kirkhope, Timothy

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Kirkwood, Archy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Knapman, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bottomley, Peter

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Knowles, Michael

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Lang, Ian

Brazier, Julian

Lawrence, Ivan

Bright, Graham

Lee, John (Pendle)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lightbown, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Lilley, Peter

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Livsey, Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Cope, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Cormack, Patrick

Maclean, David

Curry, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dorrell, Stephen

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Major, Rt Hon John

Durant, Tony

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Evennett, David

Maude, Hon Francis

Fallon, Michael

Mills, Iain

Fearn, Ronald

Miscampbell, Norman

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Mitchell, Sir David

Forman, Nigel

Moate, Roger

Forth, Eric

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Franks, Cecil

Moore, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Roger

Morrison, Sir Charles

French, Douglas

Moss, Malcolm

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Gill, Christopher

Mudd, David

Gow, Ian

Nelson, Anthony

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Paice, James

Gregory, Conal

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Patnick, Irvine

Ground, Patrick

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Pawsey, James

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Portillo, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Price, Sir David

Hannam, John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Redwood, John

Harris, David

Riddick, Graham

Hawkins, Christopher

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hayward, Robert

Rost, Peter

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Hind, Kenneth

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Howard, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)

Speller, Tony

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Howells, Geraint

Steel, Rt Hon David

117

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Waller, Gary

Sumberg, David

Warren, Kenneth

Summerson, Hugo

Wheeler, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thorne, Neil

Wood, Timothy

Thornton, Malcolm

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Thurnham, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Trippier, David

Trotter, Neville

Tellers for the Ayes:

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mr. James Arbuthnot and

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mr. Tim Devlin.

Wallace, James

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Cousins, Jim

Armstrong, Hilary

Cryer, Bob

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Barron, Kevin

Dalyell, Tam

Battle, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

Bell, Stuart

Dixon, Don

Bermingham, Gerald

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bidwell, Sydney

Eadie, Alexander

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Eastham, Ken

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Flynn, Paul

Buckley, George J.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Caborn, Richard

Foster, Derek

Callaghan, Jim

Fraser, John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clay, Bob

Hanley, Jeremy

Cohen, Harry

Haynes, Frank

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hinchliffe, David

118

Home Robertson, John

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Redmond, Martin

Illsley, Eric

Richardson, Jo

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Ruddock, Joan

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Lewis, Terry

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Loyden, Eddie

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

McCartney, Ian

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Macdonald, Calum A.

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McFall, John

Steinberg, Gerry

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Strang, Gavin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Malins, Humfrey

Vaz, Keith

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Walley, Joan

Meacher, Michael

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Meale, Alan

Wareing, Robert N.

Michael, Alun

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Winnick, David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Nellist, Dave

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Neubert, Michael

Norris, Steve

Tellers for the Noes:

Patchett, Terry

Mr. Richard Shepherd and

Pike, Peter L.

Mrs. Ann Winterton.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Bill and the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. HeathcoatAmory.]

Employment Bill
Postponed proceeding on further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), resumed.
Employment Bill
  New Clause 19

    INTEREST ON INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AWARDS
    `In Schedule 9 to the 1978 Act (procedure etc. of industrial tribunals), for paragraphs 6A there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
    "6A—(1) Industrial tribunals shall have the power to award simple interest on sums payable in pursuance of their decisions (principal awards) in accordance with this paragraph.
    (2) The decision as to whether to award for interest on a principal award shall be in the discretion of the tribunal, but it shall be for the party against whom the principal award is made to show cause why some interest should not be awarded.
    (3) Interest shall be awarded at a rate not exceeding the rate for the time prescribed pursuant to section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.
    (4) Interest shall accrue on all sums awarded by a tribunal, without any need for a decision to that effect by the tribunal, at the rate referred to in subparagraph (3) above from the date when the tribunal's decision is sent to the parties with the date of payment.
    (5) The tribunal shall have no power to exclude the application of subparagraph (4) above.
    (6) Interest shall not be awarded for a period commencing before:

    (a) in the case of an award under section 53(4) of section 72 of this Act, the effective date of termination as defined by section 55;

    (b) in the case of a redundancy payment, the relevant date defined by section 80 of this Act;

    (c) in the case of an order under section 11(8) of this Act the date when the relevant deduction or payment was made;

    (d) in the case of a guarantee payment, the date in respect of which the payment is claimed;

    (e) in the case of a payment to which an employee is entitled by virtue of section 19 of this Act, the date when the period of suspension began;

    (f) in any other, the date when application was made to the tribunal.".'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.27 pm
    Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The purpose of the new clause is to introduce, at the discretion of the tribunal, interest on awards made by the tribunal from dates preceding the announcement of the decision to make an award and for compulsory interest from the making of the award.
    I understand that last year there was a consultative paper published by the Department of Employment indicating an intention to bring in interest on tribunal awards, although draft regulations are still awaited. This would appear an appropriate opportunity to press ahead with that.
    The powers under schedule 9 of the Employment Protection Act 1978 invest the Secretary of State with power to confer interest on tribunal awards, but experience has shown that that power has seldom, if ever, been used. Indeed, the power is only to award interest on sums from the date at which the judgment is made and not the date from which the wrong has been perpetrated and in respect of which an award has been made. That differs
    120
    from most other cases in which there has been a delict or a tort, where the interest is usually payable on a settlement from the date at which the wrong was committed.
    I believe that the reason often proffered for that difference is that it is argued that the tribunal system operates more quickly and therefore people who are in receipt of awards have not been out of pocket for as long. I believe that it would be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that litigation in the courts involving a tortious action can sometimes go on for many years. Therefore, there is often a significant difference. That ignores, however, those cases where for some reason or another, and sometimes not through any fault on the part of the claimant, a case going to a tribunal can be drawn out. It may even then go on to appeal, and, therefore, it can be some considerable time before an award is made.
    The purpose of the new clause is to insert a new paragraph into schedule 9 of the 1978 Act to the effect that industrial tribunals would have the power to award simple interest on sums payable in pursuance of their decisions. That would be made at the discretion of the tribunal, although there would be a presumption in favour of interest being made payable, and it would be for the party on the losing side to put forward an argument showing why that should not be the case. One can foresee circumstances in which it might be argued that there had been time wasting caused by the claimants.
    The interest awarded would be at the judicial rate prescribed by law under the Judgements Act 1838. Interest rates are not prescribed in such a statutory form north of the border, and it would not be unreasonable for Acts of Parliament that straddled the border to provide for the same rates.
    10.30 pm
    Subsection (4) relates to those sums of interest accruing from the date of announcement of the award. The rate would be compulsory, and not at the tribunal's discretion. Subsection (5) describes the dates from which the tribunal would have discretion to award interest. Subsection (6) should refer to section 53(4) "or" and not "of" section 72 and the effective date of termination. In cases of written or unfair dismissal, that would be the date of dismissal as defined by the legislation. In the case of redundancy payments, it would be the date of leaving. The purpose of the subsection is to make clear the date from which interest may be awarded.
    On at least two occasions the judiciary has expressed a view on the tribunal's lack of power in awarding interest. In 1981 in UCATT v. Brain in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Donaldson, who is now Master of the Rolls, said:
    "There is no power to award interest on money awarded by a Tribunal as compensation for unfair dismissal … Whatever the reason, I think the time has come when Parliament, if it has a convenient opportunity, ought to consider whether it is really right that employees who are unfairly dismissed should not only have to wait for their money, which may be inevitable, but when they do wait for it they should get compensation in depreciated currency as a result of the passage of time and without interest."
    That is a powerful judicial dictum. Lord Justice Donaldson calls for Parliament to consider this matter at "a convenient opportunity" and I can think of no more convenient opportunity for the House to address itself to a judicial plea than 10.31 pm on Report on the Employment Bill.

    121
    In the 1987 Caledonian Mining case Mr. Justice Popplewell echoed Lord Justice Donaldson's plea and said:
    "We cannot pass from this case without expressing our dismay at the present position about interest. It will be observed that these men were dismissed over three years ago and have therefore been left out of their money for some time. The time that it has taken for this matter to be resolved is due to no fault of theirs. It is difficult to understand why interest which is available to parties in the high court should not be available to litigants before an Industrial Tribunal which is intended to be less formal. It is a blot on the administration of justice."
    Those are strong words from the judicial bench.
    I hope that the House will take this opportunity to remove this blot on the administration of justice. The new clause does not insist on interest rates above the level that would normally be expected to be paid in judicial cases. It reflects the concern which has been expressed more than once by the judiciary. It tries to tackle an anomaly.
    There has been little give in Committee and on Report by the Government on Opposition amendments. I hope that the new clause commends itself to the Government. Even if the Minister tells us that the wording is not suitable, an undertaking to introduce the measure in another place in a proper form would suit our purposes. I commend the new clause to the House. It will ensure that there is greater justice for those who take their case to an industrial tribunal and are successful.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is entirely right to imply that throughout Committee we always responded to good points. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our attitude this evening will adhere to that tradition to the full.
    The effect of the new clause is twofold. First, it would provide directly for interest to accrue from the promulgation of industrial tribunal decisions and so bypass the Secretary of State's existing order-making power under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, as amended, which provides for interest on tribunal awards. Secondly, it would give industrial tribunals a discretion to provide for interest on awards to accrue, even before the promulgation of their decisions.
    The first of those aims is unnecessary. In the consultation paper on industrial tribunals issued last year, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, we stated our intention of implementing the order-making power in the 1978 Act to enable interest to be payable on tribunal awards. The proposals in the consultation paper were generally welcomed and, on present plans, the necessary order will be laid later this year. While it may be argued that there may have been some delay on this, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that his new clause is, in the event, unnecessary.
    The second aim of the new clause—to provide for interest to apply even before a tribunal award—is unacceptable. In our view, the existing powers in the 1978 Act as amended are perfectly adequate and strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the interests of the respondent. Therefore, the Government would say—
    Mr. Wallace: The Under-Secretary talks about seeking power to award interest before a decision is made. I may have been ambiguous and I apologise to the House if I did not express myself clearly. We seek interest from a date
    122
    preceding the award, from the date of the wrong. That applies in most cases of tort. Why should it be different in cases of redundancy or dismissal?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. I was perhaps paying too much attention to the wording of the new clause rather than the intent as the hon. Gentleman expressed it. There is no doubt that the wording of the new clause, particularly subsection (6), if accepted, would enable interest to run, not merely from the date of judgment, but from some previous date. According to the wording of the new clause, it need not even be the date on which the action commenced. It could be the date from which the wrong accrued. That is a novel proposition, and certainly it is not the way in which the High Court or the county court work.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the words used by Mr. Justice Popplewell in the 1987 case, when he talked of
    "a blot on the administration of justice."
    My recollection of that case, backed up by the fact that I have the law report in front of me, was that the point made in the judgment was that the defendants had been kept out of their money for three years. The judgment was given in 1987, although the tribunal hearings had been in 1984. Therefore, the blot on the administration of justice was the fact that three years had elapsed before judgment was given. It is precisely that sort of blot on justice with which the order, which will be laid in due course under the 1978 Act, would deal.
    Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Is my hon. Friend saying that to pay interest from the date of the wrongdoing would be novel? Surely the Inland Revenue charges interest on money owed to it, not from the date of the hearing but from the date from which the money was originally owed. That is similar to what is proposed by the new clause.
    Mr. Nicholls: Mercifully, my duties do not include justifying the Inland Revenue and all its works. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says and feel more than a twinge of sympathy with him. What we propose about the implementation of the power in the 1978 Act is very much in accordance with general practice at the moment in relation to both High Court and county court matters, and deals precisely with the point about the blot on the administration of justice made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
    Mr. Haynes: It is all right for the Minister to brush to one side the question of Inland Revenue and interest. It works only one way, and it works only one way here. That is why the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) tabled the new clause. Let us have the facts of life, and the Minister at the Box telling us home truths about interest in relation to tribunals. He knows as well as me that many workers suffer because they cannot get to the tribunal; there are that many wanting to go.
    I can remember when the Government were telling the National Coal Board to close pits willy-nilly. Some people wanted to claim their rights at the tribunal for unfair dismissal—oh yes, there were a lot of unfair dismissals during the miners' dispute. The Minister will probably remember that, although he may not have been a Minister at the time; if I remember rightly, he used to sit at the back of the Chamber. I used to enjoy some of his contributions,

    123
    and I followed some of them because they had upset me. He has upset me this evening as well, because he has not spoken correctly and truly to the new clause.
    If a person owes money to the Inland Revenue he will be charged interest on it, but if it is the other way around —if the Inland Revenue owes the person money—there is no question of interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] It is high time that it was changed. Someone says, "There is", and I hope that it is a Whip: I hope that he will stand up and say what he means. I happen to know that it does not work that way round.
    It could take a person three years to get his unfair dismissal case to the tribunal, given the Government's actions in industry and what they have done to workers' rights. Never mind the employer; this lot look after him. I am talking about the worker—the person who provides the necessary. The employer could not enjoy himself without the employee's contribution.
    The new clause asks for fairness to the employee. If it is to take a long time for the case to reach the tribunal, interest should be paid: there is no doubt about that. I hope that the Minister will get up and say, "I agree with the new clause." He has not said that yet. Why does he not speak one way or the other, so that we know exactly where he stands? [Interruption.] That is a Whip interfering with what I am saying. He should not be saying anything. He is sat there yawping at me. If he wants to say anything, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he should indicate that to you and then get up and make his contribution.
    If we vote on the new clause, I want to know which Lobby the Minister will go into. Will he support it or not? Sitting here listening, I thought, "I wonder who wrote that speech for him."
    Mr. Ian McCartney: He should be sacked.
    Mr. Haynes: I had the impression that the Minister did not really believe what he was saying. I hope that he will get up again and tell us—I gather that he is not going to get up again, but if there is a vote we shall find out which Lobby he goes into. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall come back later and tell him what I think about him. He has the opportunity to speak again: I will give him the right—and I am sure that you will, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to stand up again at that Dispatch Box and tell us what he is going to do, what he really means and whether he supports the new clause.
    The Minister may talk about Mr. Justice Popplewell, but we are talking about the facts of life. There is no need to point to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; he has made his case. I am talking about the Minister. He sits on the Government Front Bench, and he speaks tonight on behalf of the Secretary of State, who sits there laughing his head off as though it were all a big joke. [Interruption.] Does someone want me to give way? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members have taken me off my train of thought now; I do not know where I am. Oh yes, I was talking about the grin on the face of the Secretary of State.
    This is a serious matter, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to know better. I have served with him on the Committee stages of various employment Bills. We got on ever so well, but tonight the Minister is not saying at the Dispatch Box the things that I want to hear. I hope that we shall hear whether or not he agrees with the new clause. If
    124
    he does not inform us verbally, we shall certainly know the answer if there is a vote. Make no mistake—I am coming back to that point.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. McCartney: I support the clause as someone with a number of years' experience representing employees at industrial tribunals. I refer to employers who either do not want a tribunal to consider a dismissal or who, in the period leading up to the hearing, employ methods, fair or foul, to ensure that the hearing does not take place for a considerable length of time after the dismissal in question.
    The proposed clause is more than a form of redress for employees whose tribunal appeals are successful after legitimate delays, because it will also spell out the situation to employers who exploit the system to delay hearings or to dissuade employees from taking their cases to the tribunal. At every stage, employers and their solicitors are able to exploit the law to delay proceedings, to the point where the employee will in many cases give up, or where important witnesses to the dismissal, having themselves found employment elsewhere, are no longer easily available.
    When a submission is made to a tribunal, it immediately writes to both parties requesting additional information to be passed to ACAS. That offers the bad employer acting against the employee's interests the first opportunity to procrastinate. That is the point at which consultations should take place with ACAS in the hope that an amicable settlement can be reached. If the employee's complaint is found to be legitimate, negotiations can be held and steps taken to resolve the matter, rather than resort to a formal hearing before the tribunal. Alternatively, it may be found that the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances.
    At present, not just weeks but months can go by before an employer agrees to meet with ACAS or to provide it with information on which to decide whether the employee's original submission to the tribunal was legitimate. After the existing initial stage that provides for ACAS to meet the employer and the employee, often the employer fails to provide sufficient information as the basis on which to hold discussions with all the parties concerned.
    ACAS will give the employee, or his legal or trade union representative, an opportunity to address themselves to the evidence. By then, the claim may be into its sixth or ninth month, but the tribunal has not yet been consulted. The employee may then be forced to ask the tribunal for further particulars. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) may wish to press the Minister and ask him for further and better particulars and for the reasons why he will probably oppose the new clause.
    Another few weeks, even two months, may go by as the employer is forced to provide further and better particulars. Then there is a meeting with ACAS after which ACAS submits a report to the tribunal chairman who may decide to have an initial hearing to decide whether the matter should proceed to a full hearing of the tribunal. Another eight to 12 weeks may go by until the date for a further hearing is fixed. It can take more than a year to establish whether there should be an initial hearing. It is completely unreasonable that under the law as it

    125
    stands a former employee with a legitimate claim may be unable to put his case to a tribunal until more than 12 months after the original complaint.
    After the initial hearing, a tribunal may decide that there are legitimate reasons for the complaint to have a full hearing. At that stage, the employer, or the employer's legal representative, may step in again seeking additional information from the former employee. For example, if female employees claim that they are receiving less remuneration than their male colleagues, the employer will present a detailed submission asking them for further details about how they calculate their claim in respect of the way in which they regard the job. That may take another three or four months. An employer may give ACAS the impression that it may consider negotiating. For example, the former employee may be in a new post and it may be necessary to calculate the time from the original dismissal to the taking up of the new post so that there can be appropriate discussions about compensation. While all that takes place, time is continuing. At the end of the negotiations the employer may then tell ACAS that it is prepared to go to a full hearing. Another few months have passed without the employee receiving a settlement.
    When the case proceeds to a full hearing all the relevant documents have to be prepared. In many instances the cases are very complex in terms of trying to establish a case of unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal whereby there has been a transfer of undertakings and determining whether such a transfer took place under the Employment Protection Act 1975. It takes considerable time to establish evidence, particularly when an employer is not prepared to play his or her full part in establishing the facts of the case.
    Ultimately it could take between 18 months and two years and sometimes longer, and cases become unnecessarily complicated by the misuse of legislation or the administrative practices of ACAS or the tribunal system. An employer can deliberately eke out the case to put off the potential hearing of a tribunal.
    In many cases there are legitimate reasons for delay. For example, it is legitimate for ACAS to establish as soon as it can practically do so whether a former employee should proceed with a legitimate claim. It is also important that ACAS has the opportunity to try to negotiate a settlement. In most cases a negotiated settlement is in the best interests of the employee or group of employees who have been dismissed. There are legitimate reasons why substantial delays can occur before a tribunal hearing. That is covered in the first part of the new clause.
    The Government will not accept, mainly because of their ambivalence to employees' rights, that a substantial number of employers are not prepared to abide by the rules and play fair or adopt a reasonable attitude. Under the new clause, if an employee succeeds in action taken against such unreasonable behaviour, the employer will have to meet the financial consequences of delaying the proceedings of the tribunal.
    Under the current law, rightly there is an obligation on the former employee to establish the reasonableness of his case. At an early stage of the proceedings, if it is clear to the tribunal or ACAS that the employee's submission is unreasonable, it is made clear to the employee that if he proceeds the tribunal may award costs against him. I do not object to that provision because I accept that it is a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious applications against an employer. However, if such protection is
    126
    available to an employer there must be a quid pro quo for employees, and the new clause offers ample opportunity for that.
    Conservative Members have mentioned decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal. However, they are insufficient to protect many people who try to use the tribunal system but are frustrated by the ability of employers, individually or through their solicitors, to use the system to the full. On many occasions, applicants withdraw rather than go through the lengthy procedures and worries of pursuing a complicated case of unfair dismissal.
    Mr. Haynes: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. I am convinced that the Minister is following every word and fully understands what my hon. Friend is saying. My hon. Friend probably does not realise that the Minister is a solicitor; he is legally qualified. He has probably represented employers from time to time. My hon. Friend has specifically referred to delay. I believe that the Minister was appointed to his post as he knows employment law from A to Z because he has been involved in it himself.
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for his perceptive comments. I apologise to the Minister; I did not realise that he was a member of the legal profession—the best paid closed shop in Britain, although that is currently under threat if one believes the squeals of some Conservative Members during Prime Minister's Question Time.
    I represented some women appearing before a tribunal in Liverpool. Prior to entering the room I was reviewing the evidence that we were to put to the tribunal. In the room next to us, which had wafer-thin walls, was the barrister representing the employer. He was telling the employer that his best course of action was to apologise to the chairman of the tribunal and accept the former employee's submissions as it had already cost him £160 for an hour's consultation and would cost him a further £160 an hour if he wanted to proceed. He felt that at the end of the day the employees' submission would be successful. When I and the two women concerned and some people waiting for another case heard that, we felt rather confident on going into the tribunal some minutes later.
    11 pm
    There is a substantial financial kickback for those who, on occasions, wish to eke out proceedings leading up to or during the tribunal. The payments for the legal profession are substantial. The barrister to whom I referred was acting honourably in advising his client not to proceed at the cost of £160 an hour but to quit before the cost increased. But that is not always the case and some tribunals have sat for more than a day when it has been clear from the outset that, on the evidence provided, there should have been a settlement long before in favour of the former employees. Only the intransigence of the employer in trying to ensure that the tribunal did not take place or to frustrate it so that the case would not be put by the former employees has prevented such a settlement.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right that in those circumstances a former employee should not lose out financially. There should be a penalty not only for being unable to come to an amicable arrangement but for having wasted the time of ACAS and the tribunal. There

    127
    are occasions when people put up a vexatious defence to applications by former employees and in those instances they should be penalised financially.
    In other legislation the Government have introduced financial penalties to prevent organisations or individuals from utilising tribunals. The most recent example is the Secretary of State for the Environment's instructions to impose severe financial penalties on developers and local authorities who continue with appeals against certain decisions.
    The principle has already been acceded to by the Government on the misuse of tribunal and appeal procedures in other areas, so why, in the area of industrial relations, do the Government only grudgingly accept that such a problem exists but do nothing to protect employees against the misuse of the system by employers? Is it not probably because pressure from some employers' organisations is somewhat clouding the Minister's view about such matters? On the one hand, the Government give the impression of providing additional employees' rights, but the application of the legislation reduces employees' abilities and allows the employers free range to frustrate the ability of former employees to seek redress at industrial tribunals.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will my hon. Friend put the position in a nutshell? As I understand it, the new clause does not ask the Government to deviate from the general principle of simple interest at the point of award but says that the simple interest on the award shall be paid from the point of dismissal. That is not a major step for the Government. Will my hon. Friend suggest at an appropriate point that we are not moving away from the general principle that the Government have already accepted—that simple interest at the point of award is apparently acceptable? We are asking, in the name of natural justice, that simple interest shall be payable from the point of dismissal.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. The Government should accept that an employer who frustrates the attempts of a former employee to have a case considered by a tribunal or who extends unnecessarily the proceedings leading up to a tribunal hearing—when in the view of ACAS at the secondary stage it was a case which was worthy of consideration by a tribunal—should suffer a financial penalty. An employer in that position should face a financial penalty if, at the end of the day, the former employee succeeds with his or her case. Why do the Government consider that to be unreasonable?
    Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's position on this matter is not clouded or distorted by recommendations that may have been made by employers' organisations? Their position arises simply from the political prejudice of the Minister and his colleagues, who hold an "employee bad, employer good" view. No pressure is being placed on the Minister to refuse to make the change to the Bill that we recommend. His political dogma and prejudice will not allow him to accept a simple amendment such as this.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is probably right. Hon. Members who serve on a regular basis on Committees examining Bills know only too well how the Government refuse to accept amendments which would
    128
    clearly improve the legislation under consideration. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) looking at me invitingly. I assure him that I am not making an oblique reference to another measure. Clearly, we are batting on a sticky wicket in trying to argue for common sense, for a sense of justice and for fair play. We are trying to ensure that when legislation leaves this place it will work. The Government have already secured the principle of the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Let us now try to improve it.
    Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend will be aware that, having accepted as a reasonable principle that simple interest shall be paid from the point of dismissal, the new clause provides that if an employer can show just cause why it should not be paid, that claim will be taken into account and, if proven, accepted. The onus is on the employer to show why it should not be paid. In other words, there is no reason why the Government should not accept the new clause.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is correct, and I can give an example of the way in which legislation works in that way now at the conclusion of a tribunal hearing. I am thinking of what happens when there is an application for costs in addition to normal costs, either because the employer's application was vexatious or because the timescale involved in bringing witnesses was extended beyond what had been anticipated, making the cost of reimbursing witnesses more expensive. At that stage a request can be, and usually is, made to the chairman of the tribunal. At that point the employer can object, on two grounds: on the ground of the principle that the payment should be made and, if that falls, on the ground of the level of the reimbursement. In either case he can request that the former employee or his representative go on the witness stand under oath and establish the facts on the basis of which the application is made. Only after that procedure does the chairman of the tribunal either give a ruling or consult with his two colleagues and come back with a decision.
    In every instance the rights of the employer are protected and that is precisely what the position would be in respect of any tribunal after the acceptance of this clause. The employer's rights would be protected absolutely both by the way that the clause is worded and by the way that it would be applied in due course by the tribunal.
    So the position is absolutely clear. The Minister cannot argue that the clause has a major defect in the sense that it undermines the rights of the employer at the tribunal in the calculation of interest. The employer is protected throughout. The only change that this clause makes is to make it clear to those employers who wish to undermine the tribunal system that there will be a financial penalty to be met if at the end of the day their case is not accepted by the tribunal. It is as simple and as clear as that and I cannot think of any reason why the Government cannot accept this new clause willingly. Let us make the best of this bad Bill and at least improve it in some ways.
    Throughout the procedure of getting to a tribunal the onus is on the employee to show that there is good cause to submit the complaint to a tribunal. The employee submits it to a tribunal in the absolute knowledge that if the application is judged vexatious or there is anything wrong with the way in which the evidence is produced to

    129
    the tribunal and if the hearing goes against him he can be liable for substantial costs. If that is the position for employees now, why should it not be the position for employers after the passing of this Bill?
    Ms. Jo Richardson: We shall be voting with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on this interesting, ingenious and useful new clause. We have heard a very powerful case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is clearly an expert on this matter. We should all be grateful to him for the way in which he described the various cases.
    We have all come across cases in our own experience, either as Members of Parliament, or perhaps in a former life, or perhaps in a double life if we are continuing that former life while being a Member of Parliament, as some hon. Members seem to be doing. In my own limited experience as a constituency Member—and I mean limited by being a Member of Parliament—I have found a very large number of cases over the years of people who have had to wait months and months, not knowing what is happening, when their case will come to court or when the appeal will be heard. Why should it always be the employer who has the whip hand, as it were, and who can always in some way, often ingeniously, put things off? Cases of unfair dismissal always disadvantage the aggrieved person throughout the procedure.
    I find it amazing that the Minister can toss the new clause aside in so brief and dismissive a way. At the beginning of his remarks, I thought that he was going to accept it because he seemed to be sympathetic to the first point. We are, of course, glad to hear that the Government will eventually—whenever "eventually" is—lay an order. However, why should we have to wait for that? Why should we always be pushing when there is, apparently, an open door? The Government themselves have introduced the Employment Bill. If the Government are as near as the Minister says to introducing such a provision and he has an order ready to be laid, why did he not include this provision in the Bill? Why did he leave it out and why is he still leaving it out?
    11.15 pm
    The Minister referred to the point about interest being payable at the point of dismissal or, as he said, when the wrong occurred. Why not? My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), I believe—
    Mr. Haynes: Yes, my dear.
    Ms. Richardson: Do not "my dear" me. My hon. Friend, in his usual style of hitting straight between the eyes, after which they all fell down laughing, put his finger on the point. He has shown that the point about the Inland Revenue—which Conservative Members, not Opposition Members, have raised—is the most telling. In my experience as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituency cases, whenever the Revenue is owed money, it wants its interest immediately from the point at which the money was owed. Sometimes people have the temerity when they are owed money as taxpayers—which frequently happens—to say, "1 want money on the interest you have been holding from me". It may have been held for some time if there has been a mistake for several years. However, I have never found a way of persuading the Inland Revenue to pay interest. That is most unfair.
    Mr. Jeremy Hanley: That is not true.
    Ms. Richardson: I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman would tell me how to persuade the Revenue.
    Mr. Hanley: It is not fair to say that the Inland Revenue does not pay interest on overdue tax because it does. As a professional chartered accountant, my experience is that it has always been most fair. I have no brief to defend the Inland Revenue on this matter. I am merely trying to explain my experience.
    Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman is a chartered accountant. The majority of my constituents do not have chartered accountants to do their accounts. [Interruption.] Hold on a moment. They simply know that they are owed money. At some stage, they are told by the Revenue that a mistake has been discovered and that they are owed some money. Perhaps I should have come to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) professionally. I have had several cases over the years in which I have written to the Revenue and have said that a woman or man has been owed money for two or three years. I have asked why the interest cannot be paid, but I have never won a case yet.
    Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend press the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on this issue? I have never heard of an instance in which the Inland Revenue has paid interest on moneys that have been paid by a taxpayer and which it is to refund. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the hon. Gentleman to give one instance in which the Inland Revenue has done so.
    Ms. Richardson: I should be glad if the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes would do that.
    Mr. Hanley: Not only is interest payable in the circumstances that have been described; it is even tax free.
    Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman should conduct a seminar, in his capacity as a chartered accountant, to tell Members of Parliament how to tackle the Revenue on behalf of their constituents. I have certainly never come across such a case.
    Mr. Hawkins: It is simple. One merely appeals against an assessment and if one wins the appeal, interest will be awarded against the Inland Revenue.
    It is a side issue whether the Revenue pays, as well as receives, interest. The important point is that it is not normal in legislation for interest to be paid from the date of the event—from the date on which it is owing. I should love someone to comment on what Mr. Justice Popplewell said. The injustice to which I believe he was referring was not the payment of interest from the date of the court case; it was the payment of interest in the case where employers purposely delayed the case, sometimes for three years, and so deprived the person who should have received money of the interest that he could easily have earned in a building society. That is the injustice which we have been asked to put right but which, I am sad to say, we do not put right in the Bill.
    Ms. Richardson: To return to the Inland Revenue point, perhaps we are talking about two different angles. The hon. Members for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and for Richmond and Barnes appear to be thinking of different circumstances. Suppose that a person claims that he or she

    131
    has been overpaying tax, engages an accountant—or anyway knows how to proceed—and goes to appeal. The outcome of that appeal may be a decision that interest is payable. I can envisage that happening. But I am thinking about a different kind of case, in which the Revenue has written to someone saying, "Dear Sir"—it is never "Dear Sir or Madam"—"We have found that we have made a mistake. We owe you £200, which we took from you wrongly in 1978." In that case, it is not a question of going to appeal; the Revenue has admitted its mistake. But even if one writes to the Revenue and says, "You owe that person interest," the person never gets the interest out of the Revenue. I beg the hon. Members for High Peak and for Richmond and Barnes to think about that point. We are not talking about the professional cases in which the taxpayer goes to appeal. That is different, I agree.
    Mr. Rogers: That is an award.
    Ms. Richardson: Yes, it is an award.
    Let me return to the main point, as I want to leave time for the Member for Orkney and Shetland to reply—
    Mr. McCartney: Conservative Members may not concede the point about the Inland Revenue but we should draw the Minister's attention to the booklet issued by the Department of Employment about industrial tribunal procedures, page 11 of which deals with the award of costs or expenses. It advises employees about the awards of costs and expenses against them and says:
    "an award of costs may follow a warning given at a pre-hearing assessment."
    I referred to that in my remarks. It continues:
    "This may apply even if the application is withdrawn and the case does not go on to a hearing."
    That clearly states that an employee can have costs awarded against him backdated to the date on which the application was made. The calculation could only be made from that date. The award of costs could only be for the period from the date on which the application was made to the date on which it was withdrawn. The point is already conceded in respect of employees in the Department's own booklet, yet the Government are still not prepared to meet the request in respect of employers.
    Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point, and I hope that the Minister will look again at the booklet, in which the position is simply stated. I hope that the Minister will think again. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has made a good and honest attempt, and introduced a very good debate, in trying to persuade the Department of the justice of what he and we believe.
    I hope that the House will support new clause 19. If it is in some way defective, the Minister can have it redrafted and then reintroduce it on another occasion. It is not good enough for him simply to say that the first part of the new clause is not necessary because, at some future date, he will lay an order and with little explanation to say that the second part is not acceptable.
    Mr. Wallace: This has been a somewhat longer debate than I had anticipated, but, as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, it has been a good debate. I welcome the Opposition's support for the new clause. It is regrettable that the Minister's response was so brief and
    132
    so dismissive. I welcome his announcement that the long-awaited regulations will be tabled in the not-too-distant future. However, I am sure that he would accept that that goes only a small way towards what the new clause seeks to achieve.
    A fair point was made about why the position should be any different between the Inland Revenue charging interest and an employee charging interest when the payment has been delayed for some considerable time and he has, therefore, lost the opportunity of gaining interest on that capital. Part of the purpose of the new clause is to rectify that position. If someone has pursued a claim for redundancy through an industrial tribunal and been given a lump sum award at that time, he could have invested it and gained interest. Why should he be denied interest on that money which, over some years—or even one year with the current rate of inflation under this Government—has been devalued? I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that there should be some penalty. Interest is not a penalty; it is a fair sum.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman is on the right track. The date of that award is neither significant nor pertinent because the award itself relates to dismissal. Interest on the award should therefore be payable from the date of dismissal.
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not trained in English law, but Professor David Walker, an eminent professor of Scots law, said in the second edition of his work on delict:
    "Accordingly the earliest date from which interest may be ordered to run is the date when the right of action arose."
    The word "may" makes it discretionary and what the new clause proposes is discretionary.
    This is the United Kingdom Parliament, and if the Minister feels uneasy because the new clause does not coincide with what he knows to be English law, I ask him to think again because it may well coincide with what Professor Walker says is possible under Scots law. It is not intended in any way to be a penalty; it is intended to ensure justice and fairness. In the absence of any assurance that that point is taken on board by the Government, we will press the new clause to a Division.
    Mr. Nicholls: Even in this relatively short debate a number of important points have been raised to which I wish to respond. It is obvious to me, if not to every hon. Member in the Chamber, that the Opposition have been pushing at an open door. The principle of interest being payable on awards made by industrial tribunals was conceded in the 1982 Act, which amended the 1978 Act. It has now been conceded in practice because the Government are consulting about a scheme for the payment of interest.
    The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) posed the perfectly fair question, why bother to do it that way when an appropriate Bill is going through Parliament? We believe that we have something rather better than a Bill —a statute with an order-making power. We have gone out to consultation and said that we will introduce a scheme later this year. So the principle was conceded as long ago as 1978 and the practice has now been conceded as well.

    133
    11.30 pm
    The only point of difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is whether such a scheme should provide for the payment of interest as from the date of judgment or whether it should be from the date of wrongdoing. I heard what my hon. Friends said about the Inland Revenue. That is not an appropriate analogy. Insofar as it was appropriate, it was an expert opinion from chartered accountants. It was advice which on this occasion was free. Free advice from chartered accountants is a treasure much to be prized. My hon. Friend was wrong about interest being payable.
    By far the better example was the reference to court cases by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The point about court cases is that the general rule is that interest runs from the time of judgment. In exceptional circumstances it can run from the time of wrongdoing, but in practice that happens only in exceptional circumstances because inevitably it can take a considerable time to get the hearing to court.
    A great deal of play has been made of the Caledonian Mining case and the remarks of Mr. Justice Popplewell. One dislikes to blur an interesting debate by referring to facts, but the point about that case is that reference was made in the judgment to the plaintiffs having been kept out of their money for three years. That was the time it took from the case being heard at first instance until it was disposed of on appeal. It took only a few months to get the case to the tribunal. So the blot on justice that has been referred to time and time again relates not to the time in tribunals where cases are heard relatively quickly but to the date of judgment. That is the usual position. That is what applies in courts of law. That is why I say in this case that the Opposition are pushing at an open door.
    Mr. Wallace rose—
    Mr. Nicholls: I will give the hon. Gentleman the last chance.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister has conceded that it is more appropriate to look to courts but he said that there were exceptional circumstances where interest would be allowed from a date preceding the date of judgment. The new clause allows discretion. It is not mandatory. I accept that the presumption is in favour of it. I would see it as being very much second best, but would the Minister be more disposed towards the new clause if the presumption was reversed and the person had to argue for it? That would be better than what the Minister proposes, although it would not go as far as I would wish. Is the Minister prepared to consider that?
    Mr. Nicholls: Obviously the hon. Gentleman is finally accepting that there is more force in what I said—
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right and proper for the Minister, during a debate of this kind, to say to an hon. Member that he will give him the last chance? I am asking for a ruling from the Chair. The way the Minister is carrying on is shocking, and 1 think you ought to tell him so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have heard nothing out of order from the Minister.
    Mr. Nicholls: As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland well knows, we are dealing with a structure of tribunals where a case can be heard quickly, as opposed to
    134
    a court where it can take a considerable time. That is the significant difference, and that is why I cannot go all the way with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Rogers: I am participating in the debate at this stage because of the remark by the Minister about giving the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) the last chance to speak. It is not the Minister who determines the length of debate.
    The only reason the Government are not prepared to accept the new clause seems to be because of their political prejudice and deep-seated dogma on industrial relations. The whole basis of their presentation of the Bill is that they want to argue employer, good—employee, bad. If any hon. Member makes a constructive suggestion that would improve the Bill, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland did, we see immediately the hackles of prejudice and dogma rise on the backs of Ministers.
    It does not matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) or the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have put forward their case in a proper fashion. The Opposition's attitude to the debate is, in a sense, cynical, because we know that the Minister will not accept any proposition that is reasonably based.
    When the Minister puts forward instances to justify the case, he does it without a sense of common justice and fair play. The litigants whom we are thinking about in this situation are ordinary people, who often receive wages, and who are involved in disputes, or, perhaps, are made redundant because of circumstances that are beyond their control. They are suddenly confronted with their employers being difficult and do not want—to use an expression that we use in the valleys—to give them their fair due for their legitimate rights.
    Let us suppose that a person is entitled to £2,000 for a period of service of employment and, perhaps, an even longer period of future unemployment. If the employer is difficult, he can drag the matter out, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and by the time —at the Government's present rate of inflation—that £2,000 is paid, under the proposals in the Bill it could be worth considerably less. On the basis of common justice and fair play, it should be paid at the time that the person is due the money. It is not beyond an employer who is devious, or even just cheap—the sort of person who supports the Conservative party—to delay, knowing that at the end of the day the amount of money that he will pay out will be worth much less than at the time when it should have been paid.
    The Government are wrong in not accepting this reasonable new clause. I know that if we argued right through the night we would not convince this Minister —the Minister who during the past year stood at the Dispatch Box and suggested that women should work in the coal mines, which was something that most people thought had gone out in the last century. A Minister who can justify that proposition could justify anything. One thing that I would not look for from this Minister is—
    Mr. McCartney: On the question of compensation and its fairness, even when compensation must be paid, for example, when an employer refuses to make a reinstatement at the end of a tribunal—when an employee has sought reinstatement and not a financial contribution—in the calculation of the compensation for the failure to reinstate, there is a statutory requirement on the employee

    135
    to prove that within the period leading up to the tribunal he has sought gainful employment. If that is not proven, the compensation can be reduced accordingly. Therefore, at all stages in the procedure there is an obligation on the employee that will determine the final amount of compensation. If that is the case for the employee, this minimal requirement on the employer should be accepted by the Minister.
    Mr. Rogers: Yes, but my hon. Friend should not be surprised by the ethic put forward by the Government. It underlies the Government's attitude. They try to project that they are in support of individuals, that they protect individuals and that they want to look after individuals, but, of course, that is only applicable if the individual can buy into the legal system—if he can afford the legal system. For so many individuals the only way that they can get into the legal system is by forming associations or affiliations, such as trade unions. However, the Government have attacked trade unions and their ability to defend individuals. It is a concerted political attack based on their prejudices and political dogmas.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the Government's political dogma. Perhaps they do not want interest to be paid from the date of dismissal because of the Chancellor's high interest rate policy and the damage that will be done to employers who lose a case.
    Mr. Rogers: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are concerned with, for example, the right of individuals in Poland to form themselves into a trade union. They mouth hypocritical statements about the rights of trade unions and blows for democracy. At the same time, they use the power of the state over individuals who want to exercise their trade union rights in this country.
    The Government's pathological hatred of trade unions goes back to the Heath Government. We know its basis. I do not expect any common justice from the Government or the Minister. The time for reasonable arguments and debate in the Chamber has gone. On many issues, the Government say no, no, no. They decide where they want to go. The way in which the Government are trying to destroy the Health Service is just another symptom of their dogma. We are seeing in the Government's intransigence and negativeness their political prejudice and dogma. There has never been a more dogma-ridden Government in this century. I hope that we will press the motion to a vote.
    Mr. Wallace: Yes.
    Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member has agreed. Unless one of my colleagues speaks in the debate, the Division will come fairly soon.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I notice that, in responding to the debate, the Minister appeared to have a brief before him. He appeared to present to the House something on which his mind was already made up. That is out of character for him.
    Mr. Rogers: No.
    Mr. Leadbitter: It is out of character because we are not asking a great deal in new clause 19. We are saying that the general principle has been accepted. We are talking only about the time scale.
    The Minister referred to a state of wrongdoing. Once the tribunal makes a declaration in favour of an applicant —in this case, the employee—that state of wrongdoing is removed. The question is whether in a state of equity the person who has been given the award should have simple interest from the date of judgment or from the date of dismissal. The state of wrongdoing has been removed. Therefore, the new clause gives the Minister another point in his favour. If an employer can show just cause why interest shall not be paid from the date of dismissal, the tribunal will uphold his decision.
    Why are the Government intervening in a democratic process? In effect, the tribunal says to the employer, "Your state of wrongdoing vis-a-vis the employee has been removed". It may take months for an employee to get his case before the tribunal, through no fault of his, so why cannot the award be bolstered by a state of equity, natural justice—whatever one calls it—and an innocent employee given simple interest from the date of dismissal?
    Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend refer to paragraph 6(b) of the new clause which says that interest shall not be awarded before
    "in the case of a redundancy payment, the relevant date defined by section 90 of this Act;"?
    It raises a curious anomaly in the Minister's case. If a redundancy took place, redundancy payments would be paid from the date of the redundancy, but if an appeal were made to a tribunal which decided that the redundancy was not a redundancy but an unfair dismissal, unless the new clause was accepted, the award would not start from the date of the redundancy, as a redundancy notice would require under the Employment Bill, but from the date of the tribunal. It would be completely wrong if, having proved at a tribunal that a redundancy did not exist, compensation was awarded only from the date of the tribunal, not the redundancy.
    Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend is correct. About a year ago an employee found himself in a difficulty, not of his own making, but due to a personality conflict between him and his chief officer. The young man went to a tribunal and was exonerated. However, when he returned to the local authority, which I shall not name because it would be imprudent to do so, it remained adamant and did not provide a response to the tribunal's decision.
    Ordinary working people are not lawyers, but depend entirely upon their occupation. Therefore, they go to a tribunal in a state of complete innocence. They do not know what is going to happen. But those on the tribunal who professionally consider a person's predicament and decide to award in his or her favour are saying that he or she has been relieved of a state of wrongdoing. If the process has taken several months, it seems, in equity, that the award is intended to refer to the date of dismissal, not of the award.
    I do not wish to take up too much time tonight, and the Minister may be unable to respond, but I wish to make the point that the Minister had a brief. I understand that because I have been here long enough. I am not recriminating the Minister; that is the last thing that I want

    137
    to do. However, I would like to feel that the Minister will return to his Department and discuss the mood of the House with the Secretary of State for Employment.
    On both sides of the House there is substance in the idea that an ordinary working person, having been exonerated by an award, could reasonably expect the award and the simple interest to come from the date of dismissal.
    Mr. Rogers: I notice that when my hon. Friend appeals to the better nature of the Minister and Conservative Members, as he has in his speech, all he had by way of response was a rather cynical grin. I do not wish to make a personal statement against my hon. Friend, but I wish that he would not accord to Conservative Members virtues that do not belong to them. To suggest that they are reasonable people who will accept a reasonable case is not valid. They are motivated by political dogma and prejudice, and all the reasonable arguments that may be advanced fall on deaf ears.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I understand my hon. Friend's view, but we are dealing with a limited number of cases, although it may vary according to the time of year. We are dealing with ordinary working people. I feel that I know the House of Commons. If the Minister is not in a position to give an undertaking now, I hope that he will understand the temper of the House. We are asking for something very small, although the principle is very important. If an hon. Member on either side of the House was placed in the position of an employee going before a tribunal and gained an award, would he find it difficult to understand that that award should apply from the date of dismissal and not from the date of the tribunal's judgment?
    I hope that the Minister will discuss the matter with the Secretary of State. It is not important to him as a Minister, or to me, or to any hon. Member on either side of the House; we occupy favoured positions as elected Members of the House of Commons, and we are very well off. But we are talking about people who may be very poor indeed, and who need the benefit of our prudence.
    Mr. Clelland: My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has appealed to the Minister to look to the justice of the case being put forward. I feel, however, that here we are dealing not with justice but with attitudes. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is quite right in that repect.
    We may speak of the simple justice of giving someone interest on money that he may have been owed for a considerable time—for such cases are often delayed in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). We are discussing not only the payment of interest but the payment of the compensation itself, and often such compensation is inadequate, not only in terms of meeting the wrongdoing often involved in unfair dismissal or the denial of redundancy payments, but in terms of meeting the lost earnings that may have resulted.
    In Committee, I drew the Minister's attention to a case on record in which an industrial tribunal found that an applicant had been unfairly dismissed. Winding up the case, the chairman said that had it not been for the legal maximum he would have been entitled to far more compensation, and that the tribunal would have wished to give him far more. Although such remarks were made by people who had been through the facts of the case, the
    138
    Minister was not willing to give way to that argument, and it is even less likely that he will give way to the argument being put tonight.
    Mr. Rogers: I have been arguing on the basis that the Minister will not give way to any argument, because of his prejudices and dogma. One reason why he is not giving way on this issue may be what could loosely be termed political childishness. When he gave the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) what he thought was his "last chance" to speak—some last chance that was—the Minister said that he had already conceded the point in principle, and that the Government were prepared to bring in the measure in an order at a later stage. Before my hon. Friend sits down, perhaps he will reflect on the motives behind the Government's attitude.
    Mr. Clelland: Part of the problem is that when perfectly reasonable arguments are made by the Opposition in Committee or in the House, the Minister sees it as his job not to listen to them, and then to say, "That sounds all right to me. We may not agree with the wording, but we shall devise something that will better fit the Bill," but rather he takes a macho view and considers that his task is to defeat the Opposition rather than to produce reasonable legislation.
    The attitude to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda drew attention was amply displayed when we debated that part of the Bill dealing with employment rights.
    Mr. McCartney: Perhaps my hon. Friend will probe the Minister as to his attitude towards the Employment Act 1982—the Tebbit Act—under which retrospective payments amounting to £2 million were made to 400 people who alleged unfair dismissal because of their refusal to join a trade union, when their cases had already been dismissed at tribunal hearings. Nevertheless, sections 1 and 2 of that Act enabled them retrospectively to enjoy huge awards.
    Mr. Clelland: The Government's prejudices are well known, and my hon. Friend draws attention to a particular case that illustrates them. The Government have shown on many occasions that they can twist the law to favour their particular prejudices, while denying justice to those entitled to it.
    In Committee, we suggested that from day one of their employment, people should be entitled to the full range of employment rights. The Minister's argument against that proposal was that employees would use those rights against their employers. That revealed that the view of the Minister and of the Government is that such rights serve not to protect employees against their employers but as weapons for employees to use against their employers. That reveals a great deal about the Minister's psychology when it comes to industrial relations, and says much about why he will not accept the justice for which the proposed new clause provides.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 154.

    Division No. 224]

    [11.57 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Battle, John

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Beith, A. J.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Bell, Stuart

    Barron, Kevin

    Blunkett, David

    139

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Buckley, George J.

    Meacher, Michael

    Clay, Bob

    Meale, Alan

    Clelland, David

    Michael, Alun

    Crowther, Stan

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Cryer, Bob

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Nellist, Dave

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

    Pike, Peter L.

    Dixon, Don

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Prescott, John

    Fearn, Ronald

    Redmond, Martin

    Flynn, Paul

    Richardson, Jo

    Foster, Derek

    Rogers, Allan

    Fraser, John

    Salmond, Alex

    George, Bruce

    Skinner, Dennis

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Haynes, Frank

    Snape, Peter

    Home Robertson, John

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Howells, Geraint

    Strang, Gavin

    Hoyle, Doug

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Illsley, Eric

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Lewis, Terry

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Livsey, Richard

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

    McCartney, Ian

    Mr. James Wallace.

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Amos, Alan

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Arbuthnot, James

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

    Ashby, David

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Harris, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Batiste, Spencer

    Heddle, John

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Hind, Kenneth

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

    Boswell, Tim

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Irvine, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Jack, Michael

    Bright, Graham

    Jackson, Robert

    Butterfill, John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Knapman, Roger

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knowles, Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Knox, David

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lightbown, David

    Durant, Tony

    Lilley, Peter

    Evennett, David

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fallon, Michael

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Favell, Tony

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Maclean, David

    Forman, Nigel

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Forth, Eric

    Malins, Humfrey

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Freeman, Roger

    Maude, Hon Francis

    French, Douglas

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Gardiner, George

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gill, Christopher

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Mills, Iain

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gow, Ian

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hague, William

    Neubert, Michael

    140

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Norris, Steve

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Page, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Paice, James

    Thorne, Neil

    Patnick, Irvine

    Thurnham, Peter

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tracey, Richard

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Trippier, David

    Raffan, Keith

    Trotter, Neville

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Redwood, John

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Rowe, Andrew

    Waller, Gary

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Ward, John

    Ryder, Richard

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Watts, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wells, Bowen

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shersby, Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wood, Timothy

    Speller, Tony

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

    Stevens, Lewis

    and

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mr. Tom Sackville.

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 7

    REPEAL OR MODIFICATION OF PROVISIONS REQUIRING DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES
    Mr. Lee: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 23, at end insert—
    '(4A) In section 17 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 (fencing of exposed parts of machinery)—

    (a) subsection (3),

    (b) in subsection (4), the words from ", except when any" onwards, and

    (c) subsection (5),

    shall cease to have effect.'
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 13.
    Mr. Lee: These amendments to schedules 3 and 7 and clause 7 deal with a matter that is virtually a technicality, but they have been tabled to ensure that safety standards remain at the present high level. If the amendments are not passed, there is a theoretical possibility that young people and adults may be at risk from dangerous moving parts of certain kinds of machinery.
    At the moment dangerous machinery must be fenced and people may not clean or maintain it while it is moving, with one exception, that if examination, lubrication or adjustment are "immediately necessary" while the machinery is in motion, regulations can be made to allow this. If they are made, they must specify that only persons over 18 can carry out this work—section 17(5). But such regulations have never been made. So at present the law is that no one cleans or maintains dangerous machinery while it is moving.
    Since the regulations envisaged in the original Act, if they had been made, would have had to specify that the maintenance could have been done only by persons over 18, the provision allowing them was caught by our general principle that unused legislation curbing the work

    141
    activities of under-18-year-olds should be repealed; and we have taken the advice of the Health and Safety Commission and repealed it.
    But the result is that while regulations are no longer allowed to be made to specify that over-18-year-olds may carry out such work if it is immediately necessary, the work can, by virtue of section 17(3) and part of section 17(4), be done if, in the same way, it is immediately necessary, by anyone, without let or hindrance.
    To ensure that our Bill maintains safety as well as removing this unused legislation, we also need to repeal the section of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 which allows examination, lubrication or adjustment to be carried out on moving machinery if it is immediately necessary. If we did not, employers could ask persons of any age to maintain dangerous machinery while it is moving, with no precautionary regulations needing to be prescribed first.
    There has never been a call for such regulations to be introduced. In other words, the kind of machinery that we are talking about does not need to be in motion for those maintenance purposes.
    The effect of our amendments is that the requirement to fence these machines safely will now be an absolute requirement, thus maintaining if not improving safety standards. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.
    12.15 am
    Mr. Harry Barnes: There has been an amazing transformation in the Government, for they are now concerned with safety. They can claim, for the first time, to be showing some compassion. So far we have had to deal with a host of matters concerning young people, women in the pits and other issues on which the Government have refused to make any concessions. That is why I am suspicious about this series of Government amendments.
    Why are they amending clause 7 in this way? After all, clause 8 is concerned with young people, and one would have thought that that, rather than clause 7, should be amended. Or perhaps we need an entirely new clause to deal with the safety aspects to which the amendment refers. Clause 7 is entitled:
    "Repeal or modification of provisions requiring different treatment of different categories of employees."
    It would be more correct to call it the clause which forces women to work underground in coal mines. That being so, we must ask whether the amendment is appropriate to that clause, subsection (1) of which amends the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 to stop winding and rope haulage and conveyors from being restricted to male usage only. Subsection (2) of the clause amends the same Act to allow women and young persons to do heavy underground work. Subsection (3) provides for women working underground to work significant numbers of hours and to work whole shifts involving overtime. Subsection (4) amends the Factories Act 1961 to allow women and young persons to clean machinery, especially underground machinery, in pits. Subsection (5) allows much of the same underground nightmare for women to be enforced in the schedules to the Bill.
    Why are we now offered an amendment to such a clause by way of altering the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963? There are not many offices, shops or railway premises down the pits, although there are man-riders, which presumably in future will he called man and
    142
    woman-riders or perhaps person-riders. There are also coal trucks which are sent along rails to enable the onsetter to send coal up to the surface. But they have more similarity with railways than with railway premises, shops and offices.
    Amendment No. 2 is modest, as the Minister said, in that it excludes two and a half sections of section 17 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, presumably on the ground that they cover superfluous areas in terms of protection that at present exist for those guarding machines. Section 17(1), which will remain, says:
    "Every dangerous part of any machinery used as, or forming, part of the equipment of premises to which this Act applies shall be securely fenced unless"—
    and then we have the get-out bit—
    "it is in such a position or of such construction as to be as safe to every person working in the premises as it would be if securely fenced."
    I am sure that employers could drive a horse and cart through both provisions. Why is it necessary to remove the provisions in subsection (3), part of subsection (4) and subsection (5), because employers will be able to carry on doing what they have been doing with the legislation as it stands at the moment? The removal of those subsections makes little difference. On the surface it improves the former Act but there is really little advantage.
    Section 17(5) of the 1963 Act, which is to be removed, is a key element for the Government's purpose. It refers to
    "such persons who have attained the age of eighteen".
    There is no mention of underground coal mines, women in the pit or the primitive working conditions in a mine, including the absence of lavatory facilities, which we discussed at great length in Committee, and the other problems that exist in connection with women working in a pit, unless there is a vast improvement in conditions for everybody working in a pit.
    Government amendment No. 2 has more to do with clause 8 of the Bill because that is concerned with the removal of restrictions relating to the employment of young persons. Although young persons are normally in this legislation referred to as persons aged 16 to 18, at least those over 18 are a bit nearer to this clause than they are to the clause that deals with women in the pit. It would be more appropriate with regard to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, which covers wider areas than the pit, to include it in a clause such as that.
    The paradox is that any future Government scheme to protect women by removing them from the primitive conditions in a pit would have to alter all the subsections of clause 7 except the provision that is in front of us at the moment. That indicates to me that this provision is irrelevant to the clause that we are discussing. Does it not show that the amendment is out of place here? Perhaps the Government should go back to the drawing board. They will find drawing boards in offices, shops and railway premises but not in pits—unless they are used as shovels in the pit as part of the toilet facilities.
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically churlish about an amendment that initially he supported in broad terms.
    To answer his technical questions, the reason we are altering clause 7 and not clause 8 is that the amendment essentially concerns treating young people and adults the same rather than simply removing a restriction on young

    143
    people. The Government amendment makes doubly sure that young people will not be at risk from maintaining moving machinery.
    We are supported in our approach by the Health and Safety Commission, which the Opposition in Committee continually quoted at us. The commission agrees that section 17(5) should be repealed. Its advice is that the provision is "obsolete" and that
    "if needed regulations can be made under the Health and Safety at Work Act."
    The amendments that we are now debating maintain a high safety standard.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 5.

    Division No. 225]

    [12.24 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Kennedy, Charles

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Alton, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Amos, Alan

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Arbuthnot, James

    Knapman, Roger

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Ashby, David

    Knowles, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Knox, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Lightbown, David

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Lilley, Peter

    Boswell, Tim

    Livsey, Richard

    Bottomley, Peter

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Brazier, Julian

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Bright, Graham

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Devlin, Tim

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Mills, Iain

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Durant, Tony

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Fallen, Michael

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Favell, Tony

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Neubert, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Freeman, Roger

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    French, Douglas

    Norris, Steve

    Gill, Christopher

    Paice, James

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Patnick, Irvine

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Raffan, Keith

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Redwood, John

    Hague, William

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Ryder, Richard

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Sackville, Hon Tom

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

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Harris, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Shersby, Michael

    Heddle, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hind, Kenneth

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

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

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Howells, Geraint

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Sumberg, David

    Irvine, Michael

    Summerson, Hugo

    Jack, Michael

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    144

    Thorne, Neil

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Watts, John

    Trippier, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Trotter, Neville

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Wood, Timothy

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Wallace, James

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Waller, Gary

    Mr. David Maclean and

    Ward, John

    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Cryer, Bob

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lewis, Terry

    Mr. Kevin Barron and

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Allan Rogers.

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Clause 10

    TRADE UNION DUTIES FOR WHICH TIME OFF MUST BE ALLOWED BY EMPLOYER
    Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 9, line 10, after 'out', insert `(i)'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 34.
    Mr. Nicholls: Amendments Nos. 30 to 34 are purely technical and in no way change the underlying purpose of the clause. That said, they fall into two distinct categories. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 remedy a defect in the drafting of section 32 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The need to put forward the amendments arises out of a recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Adlington v. British Bakeries (Northern) Limited. The case was decided during the Committee stage and was referred to by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise).
    The purpose of clause 10 is to remove the anomoly in section 27 of the 1978 Act, which was revealed in the 1982 Court of Appeal case of Beal and Others v Beecham. The amendments seek not to change the purpose of the clause, but to amend the law to remove that anomaly. The clause does not alter the law in any other respect.
    Mr. Strang: The Minister will recall our discussions in Committee on a clause to which we take great exception. I am not wholly convinced that the amendments are entirely technical and I wish to probe the matter a little further, especially on amendment No. 31.
    The issue has a long history going back to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which was introduced by the Labour Government. Section 27 of that Act clearly laid down the circumstances under which an employee could have paid time off for legitimate trade union activities. There was some opposition to that legislation from the Conservative party. I say "some" because in those days the Tories' extreme attitude towards the trade union movement was not fully manifest.
    During those debates a number of hon. Members sought to limit the circumstances under which people could have paid time off. The position is clear because an ACAS code of practice, which was envisaged in the Act, defines the duties for which trade union officials can have paid time off. They include:

    "(a) collective bargaining with the appropriate level of management;

    145

    (b) informing constituents about negotiations or consultations with management;

    (c) meetings with other lay officials or with full-time union officers on matters which are concerned with industrial relations between his or her employer and any associated employer and their employees;

    (d) interviews with and on behalf of constituents on grievance and discipline matters concerning them and their employer;

    (e) appearing on behalf of constituents before an outside official body, such as an industrial tribunal, which is dealing with an industrial relations matter concerning the employer; and

    (f) explanations to new employees whom he or she will represent of the role of the union in the workplace industrial relations structure."

    It is our view that the ACAS code of practice, amplified by various court cases, lays down a reasonable legislative framework determining when a trade unionist should be entitled to time off paid for by his employer. We take exception to the clause because it seeks to change all that. It seeks to remove the applicability of the ACAS code of practice and to insert a new definition of the circumstances in which a trade union official would be entitled to time off, namely, the definition in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.
    It is symptomatic of the Government's whole approach to these matters that the definition which is to be operative is the definition of a trade dispute. Time and time again we have to remind Government Members that, contrary to the impression that they and the organs of the press that support them give, full-time trade union officials spend 95 to 99 per cent. of their time not in seeking to encourage people to withdraw their labour but in seeking to avoid disputes and secure agreements. Often their intervention has the effect of preventing people from coming out on strike or taking industrial action.
    The vast bulk of their time is spent on helping the process of industrial relations which means helping to avoid disputes and breakdowns in relations between management and workers. Generally it is only a small fraction of their time that is involved in strikes and other forms of industrial action. It is sad that the Government should seek to revert to the definition of a trade dispute to lay down the conditions that have to be fulfilled for a worker to have paid time off for trade union activities.
    It was made clear in Committee how restrictive the provision will be. For example, under present legislation, if a national trade union such as the Amalgamated Engineering Union organised a conference on the car industry, provided the conference was about industrial relations and other aspects of the industry, it could reasonably expect that all its members who were active in the car industry, where there was an agreement between the AEU and the company, would be entitled to paid time off to attend the conference. So it would not matter whether the AEU convenor was based at the Rover Cowley plant or at the Nissan Washington plant; the same criteria would apply. In the example that I have given the convenor would be entitled to paid time off.
    What the legislation does is alter that position and it creates a situation where, whether the trade union convenor will have paid time off will depend on the actual collective agreement that is in force between the trade union and the employer at the particular plant or company in question. Therefore, I believe it to be the case that, if there is a rather restrictive agreement between Nissan and the AEU, one could find that a convenor at the Nissan
    146
    plant would not be entitled to paid time off, but a convenor at the Rover plant, where there is a more traditional type of agreement, would be. That was one of the points that came out in Committee.
    12.45 am
    One of the most incredible justifications for that change in the legislation was to give employers greater certainty. The implication was that there was a certain ambiguity in the current legislation as to when a trade unionist was entitled to paid time off. However, it does the very opposite, as my example illustrates. Instead of there being a uniformity across the board, as applies at present and is basically laid down by the ACAS code of practice to which I have referred, we shall be moving into a situation where the entitlement to paid time off will vary, not according to the nature of the event—for example, a conference or training school—that the trade union official wants to attend, but according to the nature of the collective agreement between the employer and the trade unionist.
    It must be pointed out that the Government completely failed to sustain their case that that would lead to a position of greater clarity and predictability for employers in relation to paid time off for trade unionists. It must further be said that the first indication that we received of the Government's intention in that area goes way back to the White Paper, "Building Businesses…not Barriers". That sought to imply that that requirement, which goes back to the Employment Protection Act 1975, was something of a burden on employers. That being so, Ministers have still not made the slightest attempt to describe that burden on or cost to employers. There is no suggestion of any quantification of those.
    No one has sought to indicate what the average financial cost or burden in any year is to any particular employer, whether large or small. Indeed, I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side of the House really believes that the entitlement to paid time off by trade union officials, as it operates in this country at present, is in any way a disadvantage or some sort of burden to employers, which makes our firms less competitive than those elsewhere.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the exact reverse would he the truth? If the arrangement for paid time off is left to individual collective agreements between a trade union branch and an employer, it will surely lead to accusations of disparities between agreements—as to employers giving time off or not, as the case may be, to go to the sort of conference mentioned by my hon. Friend—which will in turn lead to more pressure for negotiations to allow time off to reach parity with other sections of the industry. That in itself could lead to an industrial dispute about the very legislation that the Government are proposing to introduce. A national agreement laid down and applying, through statute and national convention, across the board is obviously a way of avoiding disputes between sections of an industry, whereas the Government's proposals are a recipe for conflict.
    Mr. Strang: I do not have the slightest doubt that the situation will develop in that way. Codes of practice and case law make people's position clear. It is not clear in this measure. There will be opposition by employees when they find that they are no longer entitled to paid time off.

    147
    Paid time off will be determined by collective agreement, but there are collective agreements and collective agreements. Some, such as the one between the trade unions and the Ford Motor company, are almost comparable to legislation, so well-honed are they. They are clear-cut and precise. But many other collective agreements fall a long way short of that and whether there is time off to undertake a particular activity is open to interpretation.
    Disagreement and disharmony will be promoted when a trade union has one interpretation of a collective agreement and the employer has another. We can rest assured that the employer will interpret it as meaning that the official is not entitled to paid time off while the trade union will take the opposite view. The union's rational response will be to bring pressure to bear on the employer to achieve that paid time off. Notwithstanding what is included in the collective agreement, it is always possible to negotiate a supplementary agreement providing specificaly for paid time off for a particular purpose. There will be a clear incentive for workers to bring pressure to bear on employers—perhaps even embarking upon industrial action—to negotiate a supplementary agreement to give paid time off to attend the kind of conference that I have mentioned.
    Surely most reasonable people recognise that it is in industry's interests that managers and trade union officials are well educated. Some trade union officials are involved in just certain matters—for example, national pay negotiations—but even people without experience in the workplace know that shop stewards play a pivotal role. Consequently, it must be in the interests of large, complex operations that those people have an opportunity to be as well-educated and well-informed as possible. Of course they should be well-informed about industrial relations and negotiating procedures, but they should also have the widest opportunity to educate themselves about their industry and to widen their horizons.
    In Committee, I asked whether a trade union convenor would be entitled to paid time off to attend a conference on the implications for his industry of the single European market in 1992. We did not get an answer. It is clear that often convenors will not be entitled to paid time off. Of course, it will be possible to negotiate an agreement to achieve that, but the Government are backward in the way in which they have enacted legislation to restrict the scope for working people to attend courses and broaden their education.
    No one seriously suggests that British industry gravely under-performs, that our output has been greatly reduced or that our productivity has been adversely affected because too many trade unionists have been getting paid time off to attend various courses—far from it. I suspect that not only Opposition Members but many managers and employers would argue that industry would operate more efficiently if more active trade unionists had more opportunities to participate in conferences on education and so on. That would broaden their understanding and enable them to become more knowledgeable not only about industrial relations and negotiating procedures but the nature of their industry's market.
    The measure has not been justified by the Government. Certainly, as I have indicated, the two main arguments put
    148
    forward by the Government, have not been substantiated. They have not produced any evidence to show that the current requirement is a burden to industry. It is nonsense to argue, as they have done, that the changes will bring greater certainty.
    We are talking about a large number of people and a range of courses. In 1989, 60,000 shop stewards and trade union representatives will go on training courses arranged by their union or the Trades Union Congress. The trade unions and the TUC spend £6·5 million on training, of which 25 per cent. is grant-aided by the Government.
    I am not suggesting that the new legislation will mean that participants on every course organised by the TUC or the unions will not be entitled to paid time off. That does not apply to health and safety representatives: they are governed by separate regulations and there is no restriction on their entitlement to paid time off for trade union activities.
    A large number of courses are attended by thousands of trade unionists every year. In the main they are attended on the basis of paid time off. In those circumstances it is wholly reprehensible for the Government to enact a measure which will limit the opportunity for some, not all, trade unionists, to participate in the courses.
    The Minister argued that the amendments were technical. I would appreciate greater clarification of that argument. Amendment No. 31 deals with a paragraph that is to be substituted in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The words to be removed are:
    "any matters specified in section 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974"
    and the words to be inserted are:
    "negotiations with the employer that are related to or connected with any matters which fall within"
    section 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
    That is not technical in the way that the word is normally used in the context of amendments. It changes the Bill so that the courts will interpret it differently from the way in which they would if it remained unamended.
    I seek Government guidance on this matter because when I was studying it I was not sure whether the change would marginally improve the position for the trade unions and us. I thought that the phrase
    "related to or connected with"
    went wider than the wording
    "any matter specified in section 29(1)".
    If my view was correct, it would mean that that was not a major change but would slightly improve the position. I say "slightly" because such a change would be only marginal and would in no way mitigate the enormity of the amendment, which—as we explained at some length in Committee—we consider an absolute outrage. It cannot be justified on the ground that, as the Government claim, it will help business. It is clear from the inadequacy of the Government's attempts to justify the amendment that it is born out of their continuing vendetta against the trade union movement.
    1 am
    The amendment is intended to undermine and weaken the trade unions. It is the product of an era when the Government believed that there were votes to be had from portraying the unions as the opponents—the enemies—of real progress. I am not sure whether they still believe that votes can be won on that ticket; I suspect that their own polls will tell them that such votes are becoming fewer and

    149
    fewer, and that the unions are more popular now than they have been for decades. The idea that they are somehow responsible for the major problems facing the nation—inflation, mass unemployment and a huge balance of payments gap—is nonsense.
    I would like to think that, whatever the Government's political motivation, the extent to which they can be encouraged to implement vindictive legislation on the basis that it will win votes is being reduced. This, however, is another element in the saga of legislation aimed at attacking the legitimate trade union movement. We got another whiff of the Government's attitude at the weekend, when the Secretary of State made some reference to introducing future legislation to deal with unofficial action. That was bound to receive some coverage in the light of the unofficial action on the London Underground, but the idea that action can be taken to prevent people from striking unofficially is hardly sustainable.
    Do the Government intend to introduce legislation to fine or otherwise penalise the unions? That is nonsense, because unofficial action, by definition, is action taken in defiance of trade union instructions. Will they seek to imprison the organisers of such action? In the case of the London Underground action, it is extremely unlikely that they would ever find the organisers. Even against the background of, for instance, the action that the Government took over GCHQ to undermine basic human liberties relating to the right to engage in trade union activity, it is hard to believe that they would legislate for people to be locked up simply because they sought to withdraw their labour. Whether or not the Secretary of State was serious, I suspect that, when they examine the proposal, the Government will find it impracticable.
    What is disturbing, however, is that the Government still seem to be considering legislation to trammel and restrict trade union activities further. All the evidence—including much of the evidence obtained by the Government on the consultative documents issued in connection with the Bill—has asked them not to take such action.
    In respect of a Bill debated in the last Session, the extent to which representations were made by the Confederation of British Industry, the British Institute of Management and the Institute of Personnel Management, implying and sometimes explicitly arguing that the Government had gone more than far enough, was remarkable. That was the view even of organisations that supported the Government when they first enacted employment legislation on being returned to power.
    The idea that the Government can further attack trade union rights is wholly indefensible. I do not believe that it has many supporters. It represents simply a continuation of the Government's policy of attacking and undermining trade union activity. That does not reduce union disputes. It must be clear even to the Government that the main reason for the reduction in industrial disputes is mass unemployment. Because of its scale, the average worker feels lucky to have a job and in those circumstances is not in a position to withdraw his labour. However, in some areas—and particularly London—there is not only full employment but employers are finding it hard to recruit. As a consequence, the unions' bargaining power is enhanced and there is a prospect of industrial action. The situation is exacerbated by the sharp rise in the cost of living.
    150
    We bitterly resent clause 10. I ask the Minister to answer my question relating to amendment No. 31, as I am genuinely uncertain as to its true effect. I cannot regard it as a technical amendment. The Minister referred to a recent case that was cited in the Standing Committee, and he may have been implying that the amendment would ensure the same outcome. If that is so, I regard the amendment as purely technical. Perhaps the Minister will explain precisely the implications of amendment No. 31.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: We are debating important matters relating to time off for trade union duties and for involvement in training. I prefer to talk about the opportunities for education. Trade unionists do not have to be taught by rote, but need to understand difficult and complex situations in which different views, values and arguments must be taken into account.
    The question must be asked whether we are here dealing with purely technical amendments or with something considerably more significant. The changes made in Committee and the defeats that Labour suffered there were certainly significant.
    At least four pieces of legislation must be carefully examined. They are the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, the amendment in Committee which referred the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, and the amendments now before the House, which can be interpreted in many different ways and certainly need clarifying. The original Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 stated that trade unionists should be allowed time off

    "(a) to carry out those duties of his as such an official which are concerned with industrial relations between his employer and any associated employer, and their employees; or

    (b) to undergo training in aspects of industrial relations which is—

    (i) relevant to the carrying out of those duties; and

    (ii) approved by the Trades Union Congress or by the independent trade union of which he is an official."

    That is being destroyed and specific measures were introduced in Committee stating that those provisions should be available only for matters involving trade disputes as defined in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. However, it was argued that other items could be involved in recognition agreements which might still be debated.
    The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who answered the debate in Committee, was quite insistent that recognition agreements were of vast importance and significance. In a 22-minute speech, during which there were eight interventions, he managed to mention recognition agreements 11 times and said:
    "We agree that, in principle, training of trade union officials is a good thing. In our view, trained shop stewards are better than untrained shop stewards".
    He continued:
    "Clause 10 is not inconsistent with that view in any way. All it states is that the employers' obligation to allow paid time off for training and other trade union duties must be governed by the terms of the recognition agreement with the trade union. What is unreasonable about that?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 February 1989; c. 354.]
    The amendments might destroy the possibility of the recognition agreement being taken into account. Our argument in Committee was that the recognition agreement would be undermined in regard to time off for trade union duties by clause 10 which would alter the legal

    151
    framework in which trade unions could negotiate. The Government did not take that view. They believe that negotiations have nothing to do with power relationships in industry and that two good-natured people chatting together can sort things out.
    What does amendment No. 32 mean? It introduces a fresh provision about other training and educational duties that could be involved. It states:
    "(i) any other duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with the performance, on behalf of employees of the employer, of any functions that are related to or connected with any matters falling within that provision and that the employer has agreed may be so performed by the trade union;"
    The second part of the amendment seems to refer to recognition agreements. But to what does the first part refer? Why do we need fresh language now? Is there a legal possibility that the second part of the amendment would be tied in with the words "falling within that provision" to clause 10(a)(i), which refers to section 29 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act? Is it possible that, although a matter was included within a recognition agreement, the employer could disobey that recognition agreement because the agreement on time off for trade union studies exceeded the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act? If my interpretation is correct, if flies in the face of what we were told 11 times in Committee by the hon. Member for Pendle.
    1.15 am
    In Committee, the Minister said that health and safety provision would not be affected, but amendment No. 32 might affect it. It says:
    "any other duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with"
    negotiations with an employer
    "that are related to or connected with any matters falling within"
    section 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.
    The words
    "that are related to connected or with any matters"
    throw the matter wide open and make an improvement. Are negotiations with an employer possible negotiations under the appropriate section of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act or are they actual negotiations, which will depend on power relationships within an industry and may be highly restrictive, given the other trade union legislation that has been passed in recent years? Clause 10(a)(i) may be highly restrictive, and may add to the problem with clause 10(a)(ii) if it is interpreted in the way that I suggested earlier.
    There is much need for time off for trade union duties and education. The Bill, which is of much interest to trade unionists, young people, women who may have to work in a pit and disabled people, may exclude from discussion matters such as time off for trade union duties, terms of employment, the allocation of work duties, matters of discipline, membership of a trade union, facilities for trade union officials and machinery for negotiation. A legal interpretation of the Bill might restrict such activity.
    I should like more detail of the Bill's provisions and why the amendments are necessary. To argue that they are technical and that therefore we need not worry too much about them does not carry much weight because other
    152
    measures described in Committee as technical which were opposed by Labour Members produced serious problems for working people.
    Mr. McCartney: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kind remarks about my recent illness. I hope to prove that I am back to full fitness as I catch your eye again and again. That is not a threat.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It is a promise.
    Mr. McCartney: You said it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The clause is important. We are trying to elicit from the Government the true intention behind their proposals. In his detailed analysis, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) clearly showed that in practice on the shop floor it is vitally important that trade unions are able to use legislation when their legal rights are challenged. That applies particularly in industries where trade unions are in a weak position, not necessarily because of low membership but because of the way in which that membership is situated in particular industries and the relationship between employees and the companies in those industries.
    It is important that legislation does not create further imbalances which reduce the ability of working people to join a trade union and to make recognition of that union effective by the way in which an employer provides resources and facilities, such as time off, for the trade union representatives to carry out their duties.
    As a former shop steward, I have always taken the view that it is paramount in good industrial relations that an employer recognises the work of trade unions in the workplace and the way in which they can make a positive contribution to the development of the company and, in the day-to-day management of a company, their contribution in terms of developing strategies and improvements in work force techniques, the development and use of new technology, and the way in which relationships and communications can be improved in an industrial setting.
    All that can be done only by the active co-operation and involvement of trade unions. Where that co-operation is sought, it can be effective only when trade unions have the right to ensure that their contribution is underpinned by time off and other resources.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said, in Committee the Minister said that all those matters were covered by recognition agreements. That is significant, because recognition agreements are central to whether trade unionists have any rights under current legislation.
    For example, the first part of clause 10 says:
    "In section 27(1) of the 1978 Act (duty of employer to permit employee who is an official of an independent trade union recognised by employer to take time off to carry out certain trade union duties)"
    That recognition is vital to whether a trade unionist can, in reality, effectively carry out his or her work on behalf of the trade union and the work force.
    The reality is that under the Government ACAS, in its handbook for small firms, says that there is no statutory obligation on the employer to recognise the trade union. An employer who refuses to recognise a trade union undermines completely what the Minister said, because it, follows from that that there is no recognition of statutory rights.

    153
    Again, hedging its bets and advising on representation rights, on page 57 of the handbook, ACAS says:
    "Sometimes employers do not think there is enough strength of feeling for trade unions within the workforce to justify full recognition."
    We all recognise that as the first excuse by employers to prevent trade unions being recognised.
    It goes on:
    "Instead they may agree to representation rights which do not provide for full negotiations with the employer but entitle members to be represented by their union individually eg, in disciplinary cases or if the employee has a grievance".
    Here we are talking about a situation where an employer may give certain rights, but there is no full recognition agreement. That agreement does not, therefore, meet the test set out by the Minister in Committee because it does not deal with facilities, training and time off. If the trade union does not accept that, the result is no union recognition.
    In giving an example of what can happen, I will not name the company because the individual concerned is still employed, albeit tenuously, by the firm. I wrote to the Minister some time ago about this case and received an unsatisfactory reply, in which I was sent a leaflet about the employment of disabled workers, was reminded that an employer did not have to recognise a trade union and was told that the Government could not intervene.
    My example involves a woman who was employed by a company which was taken over by a large retail organisation. The original employer had employed her under the provisions for employing disabled workers; the lady in question has suffered from major disabilities since birth. The original employer recognised trade unions and the value of employing disabled people. Following the takeover, the new employers informed the trade unions concerned that the company would no longer recognise unions in negotiation proceedings and would not offer the right of representation to individual employees.
    The new company told the employees in the company in Wigan which had been taken over that working arrangements would be changed in a significant way. For example, the girl in the example I am giving had been employed as an assistant at a cash desk. Her job description was changed and she was to become a sales person with a weekly and monthly sales target to reach. Her disabilities were such that she was unable to reach those targets and she became liable to disciplinary proceedings by the company.
    The company told her that it would not recognise her trade union and attempted through harassment to discipline her because, as I say, her disabilities prevented her from selling sufficient television sets, video recorders and other machines to the public.
    When I wrote to the company pointing out the previous arrangements and claiming that the young lady should at least have the right to be represented by the trade union concerned at a disciplinary hearing, I was told that, because there was no recognition agreement, it had no requirement to allow her to be represented. However, the company said that it would allow her to have present a friend who was not employed by the company.
    At that stage I wrote to the Minister claiming that that was unsatisfactory, with the harassment of a disabled person whose statutory rights were being undermined. The Minister washed his hands of the whole affair. He turned a blind eye and would not intervene, even though a major
    154
    national company was harassing a disabled worker because it was claimed that she was not reaching sales targets.
    It is in such cases, where partial agreements exist or where no agreement exists, that the rights of trade unions to represent individuals are undermined. In Committee, the Minister said that all would be well so long as there was an agreement. I have shown that employers who do not want to provide facilities for trade unionists just do not make agreements or they restrict such agreements as they are prepared to make. The Government amendments represent further restrictions on agreements, which will be interpreted in such a way that the rights that unions have to represent their members will be further eroded.
    1.30 am
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) raised the issue of 1992, which is vital to all trade unionists in the United Kingdom. I will use an example here too from my own constituency.
    Heinz is one of the major employers in Wigan and we have a good relationship with it as a company. This example is not an indication of what Heinz may or may not do in the sense of the many policy statements that have been issued, but it shows what could happen after 1992 unless the Government give some clear guidelines to employers such as Heinz.
    Currently Heinz has two factories in the United Kingdom and has acquired over a number of years factories in Portugal, Spain, Holland and Italy. The factory in Wigan, which is the largest manufacturing base in Europe, is the area for the production of baby foods —where a controversy has recently been raging—baked beans, ravioli and the like. The factory at Harlesden in north London produces pastas, such as spaghetti, Weight Watchers and other such lines and pickles. In 1992 these units could be in competition with factories in Europe. For example, the factory in Holland has almost the same production capacity as that in Wigan and a very similar product range.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the amendment before us, which deals with time off for trade unionists.
    Mr. McCartney: That is precisely the point that I want to make about 1992, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The production capacity of the factories in Spain, Italy and Portugal is such that it could lead to significant changes by switching production from the United Kingdom to the European sector, as has happened with the Ford Motor company and other companies in the engineering industry. Come 1992, will there be obligations and rights for trade unionists in Britain to sit down with their counterparts in Europe to discuss the implications of 1992, the overall level of production in Heinz as a company, the role of each of the production bases in Europe and the benefits or otherwise of switching production between factories?
    Unless there are statutory rights as between factories, the rights of workers after 1992 in this sector of the food industry will be radically undermined even if the employer is a decent employer, so it is vital that there is a clear indication from the Minister that he is not going to rely on the so-called recognition agreements, because in many instances they will not be agreed between employers and trade unionists, but will set down specifically the right of

    155
    workers to have their trade union recognised and specify that minimum standards must be provided for the trade union to operate on behalf of its members.
    That brings me to an issue on bargaining and training. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) want to intervene? I know he is a champagne lout—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman needs your protection from these remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker; he is very sensitive. I do not want to take the time of hon. Gentlemen if they want to make a positive contribution to the debate, as I am genuinely attempting to do.
    On the issue of training, in terms of both bargaining and health and safety, many instances of a breakdown between employers and employees are the result of inadequate consultation over the bargaining system and the rights of employees within that system in terms of their being specifically involved in bargaining and of how those systems are refined in the sense of interpreting them. It happens both in terms of those specifically involved in bargaining and how those bargaining systems are refined in the sense of interpreting them, which involves the general work force, and in interpreting bargaining representation.
    Good employers—and there are many in the United Kingdom—prefer to provide the opportunity to ensure that where bargaining arrangements exist, the trade unions involved in them are training to ensure that they have an absolute knowledge and grasp of the bargaining procedures and that they also understand and are involved in how decisions are transmitted to the work force. The Minister has not responded positively to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). He has not said that there must be specific protection in the Bill for training on bargaining agreements. The same is true of health and safety and other matters. Unless the Minister becomes more positive, the Opposition can continue only with the clear understanding that this Government use employment legislation to weaken the rights of trade unionists and employees, and do so specifically to change the balance of power in industry and to weaken and undermine the ability of employees to negotiate. In doing that, rather than protecting and enhancing industrial relations, they are undermining industrial relations.
    Mr. Michael Welsh: It is of great importance to industrial relations that workers are educated about them. The average age of people working for British Coal is about 34. The chairman of British Coal has said that he will welcome the opportunity to give courses to educate young people in trade unions in industrial relations and collective bargaining. I believe that you would welcome that, Madam Deputy Speaker, although the Government will not.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. I welcome the fact that British Coal has recognised the error of its ways in previous years and is now attempting to improve the ability to communicate and the involvement of trade unions.
    Another area in which I would welcome a greater degree of training and involvement of trade unions and
    156
    employees is in negotiations and discussions on pension provisions. Here again, it is vital in the bargaining procedures and in the recognition agreement, by which the Minister lays great store, that there is clear recognition of the need for time off with pay for employees' representatives to be involved in the negotiations on pension provisions for employees. That is vital, given the changes in legislation in recent years about rights in connection with pensions and the ability of employers and employees to switch pensions between companies and divisions of individual companies. Unless employers recognise the need for time off for training and involvement in the negotiations and administration of pension schemes, employees will again be at a distinct disadvantage.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 has now been altered as a result of the changes that took place in Committee. The position now is that the definition of trade disputes will determine what it is that employees are allowed to be educated about. There are seven categories in the 1974 Act, but none of them makes any direct reference to pensions being a possible item under discussion. It would have to be argued that terms and conditions of employment, which are one category under the Act, should be considered. It is possible that, within law, the terms and conditions of employment do not include pensions because they are not directly part of working, but are a benefit that people receive when they have left work.
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. He referred earlier to the Minister's remarks in Committee, and to the great store that the hon. Gentleman set by recognition agreements. If a recognition agreement is all that an employee can rely upon in his relations with his employer, it must include his absolute right to involvement in the determination and administration of any pension scheme that the company may operate independently of, or in conjunction with, other companies. That right must be included if the recognition agreement is to mean anything.
    We must also consider what would happen under the Bill as amended if an employee who was up on a disciplinary charge were sacked by the company and went to a tribunal. Let us suppose that the shop steward wants to represent that employee against the company. Would the amendment prevent a shop steward or workplace representative from having time off with pay to act on behalf of the employee?
    Mr. Cryer: The brutal new law passed by the set of savages who are in government at the moment removes benefit for 26 weeks. Because of that, employers often send representatives to tribunals dealing with cases amounting, in effect, to cases of unfair dismissal, to claim that the employee has been fairly dismissed and was in breach of some disciplinary procedure or other. That allows employers to disbar employees from 26 weeks' benefit. If the worker does not have the right to similar representation, the employer can make a one-sided case, in which the worker comes off worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is making an important point.
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but my worries go even further. Even if an employer refuses to allow a shop steward to represent an

    157
    employee who has been dismissed or disciplined, that employee should still have the right to call on fellow workers as witnesses in any disciplinary proceedings. Will the Minister give a commitment that employees will be given time off with pay to act as witnesses on behalf of the disciplined employee or employees? If not, it can be argued that significant changes are afoot in trade unionists' right to representation.
    What happens if a trade union representative proposes to represent an employee at a Department of Social Security appeal tribunal concerning the payment of a benefit in respect of an absence resulting from an industrial accident or injury? An employee who has sustained an accident at work may have been excluded from claiming a number of benefits for which he is, in fact, eligible, and he may ask for his trade union representative to represent him at the tribunal. There is a direct correlation between the accident at work and the employee's right to claim the benefit and his workplace trade union representative therefore has a right to represent him. In such circumstances, is it not fair and right that the employer should allow that trade union representative time off with pay to represent the employee at the tribunal? It is not at all clear whether the amendment would undermine that basic principle.
    I know that a number of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate. Let me finish, therefore, by asking the Minister a specific question about the rights of disabled workers, particularly in respect of recognition. Does he agree that it is about time that the Department of Employment made it clear that there is a duty on major employers to make provision for disabled people in the workplace? Where there is evidence that the rights of those disabled people have been undermined, should not the Department take it upon itself to ensure that that state of affairs does not continue?
    1.45 am
    It would be absolute nonsense and a sham if the Department were to issue leaflets telling employers of the need to recognise the rights of the disabled in the workplace while at the same time the Minister writes to Members of Parliament saying that if employers undermine existing rights it is nothing to do with the Department, but a matter between the employer and the employee. Have we really reached the stage when the disabled can be so flagrantly disregarded by the Government and their position so undermined that there is harassment to get rid of disabled employees? That is wholly unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will take steps to strengthen the rights of the disabled in the workplace.
    Mr. Cryer: It often strikes me that Tories are much more interested in machinery than in people. If, for example, an employer wished to introduce new machinery, there would be long discussions in the board room, new training provision and assessments of the machines' output, the installation costs and the degree of protection for the machinery—most of it imported under the Tory Government. Yet the Government rarely understand that there must be the same degree of scrutiny and education on behalf of the employees.
    This nation's most important asset is its people. The relationship of people to machines and to each other is a continuing process of negotiation in industrial relations. If
    158
    people are to be allowed to retain their dignity, they must operate within independent trade unions. The Government love the trade unions to operate anywhere other than in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister dances with delight about the trade union movement in Poland—not because she is concerned with trade unions or, indeed, anyone in particular in Poland, but because she thinks that any movement among the people in Poland must inevitably lead to the breakdown of the system so that private enterprise capitalism and the enterprise culture can be instituted.
    The right hon. Lady claims concern for the trade unions. We are members of a party that sprang from a trade union movement, that came into being because the factor of production called labour—a collection of people —demanded dignity and the right to participate, at the very least, in the productive processes. I work to make labour superior to capital. I hate the process in which the owners of capital dictate to labour in that list of the fact ors of production. However, because that process exists, I seek to give working men and women—labour—an opportunity to exercise some dignity. Time off for trade union activities is part of that pattern of preserving human dignity.
    Tory Members know that the board rooms where most of them spent many years are not tatty or badly ventilated. The directors make sure that they are well furnished, well lit and well ventilated, so that discussions can be held in quiet circumstances. If they concede reasonable canteen conditions for the workers, it is sometimes done with enthusiasm but sometimes with an ill grace.
    The clause and the amendments are trying to take away some established rights that have been built up over the years for trade unions to participate in a limited range of activities, with time off from work with pay. As I mentioned in an intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who made a good, comprehensive speech, the proposal, which will mean that the terms and conditions for time off with pay will depend on local collective agreements, is a formula for further conflict.
    If a national code of conduct is produced by ACAS or another reputable organisation, it has the imprimatur of a code of guidance even though it may not be legally enforceable. There would be standard terms and conditions for time off for each factory. Therefore, if there was a meeting of trade unionists to reach a collective understanding, there would not be an argument about why Fred Smith or Charles Jones, convenors from the factory in Birmingham, Norwich or Nelson, were not there because their employer would not give them time off. Otherwise, argument might start about why A should be given time off and B should not, and why C should get only half the time necessary for the discussion on training or whatever. Inevitably there would be pressure from the workpeople and from the individuals themselves, or perhaps from the individuals to start with, spreading to the work force, who would say that their representatives should have the same rights as representatives of other firms doing the same sort of work and seeking the same sort of training.
    A union might organise a conference on 1992. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young of Graffham, did not start the campaign on 1992—with glossy pamphlets and massive public expenditure—in a back street. As I recall, he set it off with a series of

    159
    breakfasts, all paid for by the taxpayer, for industrialists. He thought that he would give industrialists a chance to chat together about it. But if an employer decides that a trade unionist is not to be allowed to attend a conference on 1992, that will be the sole decision of the employer.
    Amendment No. 32 refers to
    "any other duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with the performance, on behalf of employees of the employer, of any functions that are related to or connected with any matters falling within that provision and that the employer has agreed may be so performed by the trade union".
    The phrase "the employer has agreed" means that it will be a unilateral decision. I do not think that that is right. The best arrangements in a workplace are made by collective discussion and agreement.
    The unilateral decision of the employer will apply to an activity that might well cover the obsession of the current Government advertising campaign with the wonderful benefits of 1992. The textile unions might want to organise a conference on burden-sharing arrangements for textile imports by 1992 after the renegotiation of the existing multi-fibre arrangement. That would be a legitimate discussion because it would be a matter about which both the employers and the employees in the textile industry would be very much concerned. The discussion could be about other things, such as the high interest rates created by the Government's economic policies, short-time working, loss of jobs or lack of investment.
    However, under these proposals, in the textile industry, for example, Courtaulds may have a collective agreement that allows its shop stewards time off, but another firm, such as Bulmer and Lumb or Benson and Turner in my constituency, might say, "We do not think that you should have time off." Therefore, a conflict will arise. The trade union movement will naturally attempt to obtain standard terms and conditions for every one of the organised workplaces, and it is only right that it should do so. It would be unjust if there was a disparity in attendance at such a conference as I have outlined, where the discussion would concern the future of the textile industry, which is still important to northern areas, such as Yorkshire and Lancashire. The Minister's proposal to alter the Bill, which is not a very fruitful Bill in any event, is, therefore, likely to cause conflict.
    Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend consider the situation whereby employees are now having to consider involvement in competitive tendering in the Health Service and in local government services? It is necessary for them to be involved for the first time in the tendering procedure and their ability to be so involved is linked to their ability to have paid time off to secure the right education and background to develop ideas for submitting tenders, for checking tenders and for validation of tenders. I know already of situations where trade unionists are being told that they will not be allowed paid time off for such activity. Will my hon. Friend indicate whether he believes that the amendment will undermine that position even further?
    Mr. Cryer: Clearly, if there was a trade union conference called about those circumstances, in which the aim of the trade unions would be almost certainly to secure tenders and to obtain jobs for their members, paid time off should be allowed. We must remember that the
    160
    background to the discussions is not a deep underlying antagonism of the trade union movement to capitalism and all its works, but the aim of protecting its members, to preserve jobs and, indeed, to improve the efficiency of the enterprise in which its members work. There are many examples where trade unions have entered into agreements on productivity arrangements. For example, in the textile industry, three-shift working, changes in staffing, the flexibility of staff and the introduction of new machinery have all been accepted because the trade unions have been co-operative. As a matter of interest, many thousands of textile workers who lost their jobs did not have the co-operation of their employers, which they so richly deserved.
    My point is that the trade unionists may well wish to go to a conference, because they see a conference about public procurement as an important means of securing the future viability of the factory in which they are working. However, under amendment No. 32 it would be entirely up to the employer as to whether they would be allowed to go or not, which is wrong.
    There are many moves which will vitally affect jobs in our country. For example, there is the public procurement directive of the EEC, in which it states that tenders of public bodies will have to be put out to the whole of the Common Market. That could be a threatening provision for jobs in the United Kingdom, which has a massive balance of payments deficit. If the directive is introduced without safeguards, the proportion of our public procurement trade from non-member states could rocket from its present level of 2 per cent. of £4 billion. The trade union movement would hold meetings at weekends and outside working hours, but inevitably part of the working week would have to be used. I am talking about activities which fall within the amendment and which would be mounted because of concern by trade unions for their members' jobs.
    2 am
    It is wrong that the employer should have the sole decision-making capacity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, trade unions need to be independent so that they cannot be suborned or silenced when representing their members at disciplinary hearings. An employer may say, "I will not give you time off to represent a trade union member in a case appealing against my decision." In all fairness, that must happen. An industrial or social security tribunal hears evidence from both sides. The outcome of discussions that take place before a tribunal hearing is not a matter for the employer.
    It is similar to a plaintiff in court being denied representation when a defendant has representation. Everyone would say, "That is unjust." Under this legislation, a one-sided case can be presented by an employer, who can afford to employ a solicitor. Industrial tribunals have been legalised away from the basic formality that they were established to provide—not by workers but by employers, who obtained and paid for the services of solicitors and barristers. That is one reason why the right of trade union officials to time off should be made clear. That would provide the justice that most people recognise as important in a court of law and in social and industrial tribunals.
    Mr. Bob Clay: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the remarks made by my hon.

    161
    Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on the role of trade unions in discussions on local authority privatisations? Apart from local authority privatisations being forced through Parliament by the Government, a growing number of management and employee buy-outs are taking place, encouraged by the Government. Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that in many ways the Government's proposal operates against their competition policies? Management could use the discretion that they will have if the amendment is passed to discriminate between one employee or management buy-out and another. Sometimes trade union officials would be allowed time off to develop business plans and prepare buy-outs and sometimes they would not. That would be not merely unfair but corrupt.
    Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. In a sense, it would amount to insider dealing, with employers using their position under apparently unconnected legislation to manipulate decisions and keep trade unionists out of one set of negotiations while allowing them to participate in another. That is an important point, because yet again the decision-making apparatus is in the hands of the owners of capital, while labour is, in every sense, at their mercy. Many important moves are taking place in legislation due to the Government's decisions.
    For example, it would be reasonable for employees of the National Health Service to have time off to discuss the takeover of the cleaning services. I have an exact case in point. Trade unions were, as it were, privatised by an organisation called Taylor Plan. Employees to whom a wage award had been made during their period of service found that, if they left service before the payment was handed over, Taylor Plan refused to make the payment. That happened to employees who worked when the award was negotiated and when it was operative, but had not been paid out because of delays in computer programming, the post or whatever excuse the administration produced.
    If people are struggling from week to week to meet payments for rates, electricity and gas, and are driven to get electricity tokens from the Yorkshire electricity board to feed their electricity meters because they are scrimping and saving week by week, a back payment is important. It is essential that their trade union representatives should be able to participate in discussions to ensure that collective agreements on privatisation are at least equal to those agreements that they have already negotiated with the public authority.
    The Government produce the change in circumstances because, by the back-door privatisation of the Health Service, they require health authorities to sell off their cleaning and other services. They did it first to cleaners and are now trying to do it to doctors, from whom, I am delighted to say, they are encountering enormous resistance, and to local authorities. Therefore, there are more reasons why trade unions need the opportunity to discuss the changes taking place in working practices, ownership and negotiations which arise solely out of the mad theological doctrines of the gangsters who currently govern our nation, but whose time, I am happy to say, is running out. It is important to clarify the trade unions' position.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, and no doubt the Minister, would say that different rules affect health and safety at work. Time off is allowed for health
    162
    and safety at work matters but is in the process of becoming highly qualified for other matters. I wonder why. Is it because, with health and safety at work, there is a clear link between the loss of hours of work and industrial injury, and, therefore, it is sensible, even to the class warriors of the Right wing in the Government, to give time off to discuss health and safety at work to prevent a loss of hours? However, the relationship between time off and industrial relations, and the panoply of associated ideas, is not quite so plain.
    Good industrial relations spring from the confidence of two sections of industry, employers and workers, in each other. If employer and employees are bickering over who is to have time off in every circumstance, week after week, it erodes that confidence. It reduces morale on both sides, leading almost inevitably to a lowering of productivity, and is entirely counter-productive. I should have thought that the rationale for allowing time off to cover health and safety provisions should apply across the board.
    As I have said before in the House, it is difficult to examine the statistics relating to industrial injury and those relating to strike action because the Government have removed from the 1984 statistics those relating to time lost through injuries requiring three or more days off work. If the Minister examines those statistics, however, he will find that in any average year more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. The Government should cast aside their shibboleth that trade unionists are always organising strikes, and look at the reality in industry: that trade unionists want to protect their members' jobs, want a wide range of interests to be associated with those jobs and want an educated and confident work force in a factory where some mutual trust and confidence exists. The Government's qualification for time off will not produce that.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) pointed out, the Government have provided no assessment or calculation as a basis for that qualification. Although I was not on the Committee, I understand that there, too, no information was produced to enable the Government to point to a lowering of productivity or an increase in industrial disputes as a result of the existing legislation and code of practice. If that is the case—as I firmly believe—it is another instance of the blind prejudice of a Government who provide the mm and women working in the diminished number of factories still remaining with the best example of class warriors. It is the Government who want to attack organised working men and women, and to diminish their aims of dignity and parity with the owners of capital.
    I have no doubt that the Government will proceed with their amendments, but we shall still have won the arguments, and the arguments here will be transferred to the factories. The Government amendments are a first-class formula for disputes between employer and employee, and for a lowering in morale, tone and output wherever the new rules apply.
    Mr. Nicholls: Running through the debate has been the theme that the Government amendments are not technical, and I accept that that is a justifiable concern on which I shall try to satisfy the House.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) put his finger on it when he talked about the way in which the system should operate, and when he said that the purposes for which people would be able to take paid leave

    163
    would be determined by the existing collective agreement. I think that the implication was that the matter should be left to the common sense of employers and employees alike, without Government interference. For all I know, that may have been the intent of those who drafted the 1978 Act, but in practice it worked out in precisely the opposite way.
    2.15 am
    It became clear at a relatively early stage, and certainly in the Court of Appeal case of Beale and others v. Beecham Group Ltd., not that unions were able to reach agreement with an employer as to the matters for which an employee would be entitled to paid leave but that the matter went further than that. The effect of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Beale case was that, once there was recognition of collective bargaining, it became virtually impossible for the employer to say, "I did not mean collective bargaining in its entirety but particular aspects of collective bargaining." Once there was recognition of agreement on collective bargaining, it meant whatever the union wanted it to mean. Clearly use was being made of the original purposes of the 1978 Act, which was far too wide, and the Government felt that that scenario should be addressed.
    In the context of the Bill, the Government introduced clause 10 whose purpose—despite the inevitably complex drafting—is easy enough to understand in layman's terms, even if the lawyers are not always satisfied. Its purpose is to ensure that employers will have only to provide paid leave for matters that they recognise in respect of the unions concerned. That is why clause 10 was originally drafted in the way that it was.
    However, even while the Bill was in Committee, and as clause 10 itself was being debated, the Court of Appeal made a good attempt, as it turned out, to address the problem that Beale brought to prominence. It did so in the case of Adlington v. British Bakeries. The rationale was that, even in respect of an item covered by a recognition agreement, and notwithstanding the dictum in the Beale case, there should still be a degree of proximity between what was being claimed in relation to paid time off and actual negotiations. The Adlington case introduced the concept not only of theoretical recognition but proximity to actual negotiations. In the context of that decision, the Court of Appeal addressed the same problem that the Government attempted to address with clause 10.
    At that stage, parliamentary counsel clearly had to examine the drafting of clause 10 and decide whether it needed adjusting in the light of Adlington; or, in layman's terms, to see whether any useful ingredient in the Adlington case had not been taken into account in clause 10. Parliamentary counsel reached the conclusion that the concept of proximity was useful and one that clause 10 alone would not address. It was with a view to retaining that concept of proximity that the amendments now before the House were devised.
    Amendments Nos. 30 to 34 fall into two distinct groups. Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32, within the intention of clause 10, preserve the proximity concept contained in Adlington, whereas amendments Nos. 33 and 34 deal with a different matter entirely.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised the issue of associated employers, and in
    164
    doing so he identified the purpose of amendments Nos. 33 and 34. Incidentally, I correctly described amendments Nos. 30 to 34 as technical because they are, in the sense that, once one accepts the purpose of clause 10—which I realise Opposition Members do not—and the fusing of the proximity concept with Adlington, the amendments become a purely technical exercise, but in the way of these things, it is not a simple one. They are technical amendments to that extent.
    Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 take the opportunity to remedy a defect in the drafting of section 32 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The irony is that that defect would have been apparent on the face of the 1978 Act. Section 32 sets out the definition of the term "recognised" as it applies to independent trade unions for the purposes of sections 27 to 31(a)—the time-off provisions. Amendment No. 31 would amend section 32 of the 1978 Act because the definition of "recognised" is redundant and has been so since 1978, because "recognised" means
    "recognised by an employer or two or more associated employers".
    But sections 27(1) and 28(2) of the 1978 Act to which the definition applies speak of "an employer" and
    "an independent trade union recognised by him".
    So the reference in the statutory definition to "associated employers" is clearly otiose, and this is a good opportunity to remove it. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
    Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 would preserve the proximity concept in Adlington. Notwithstanding that, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East asked me specifically about amendment No. 32.
    I reiterate that the purpose of clause 10 is to give a right to time off for duties which are connected not with negotiations but with the performance of other functions such as representation through a grievance procedure which the employer has agreed to allow the union to perform. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are connected. They both seek to ensure that that proximity concept is retained.
    I appreciate that the amendments are not easy amendments, but I assure the House that all they do is ensure that clause 10 stands, while at the same time clearing up an anomaly in the 1978 Act and making sure that the concept of proximity is retained.
    In all fairness, the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) needs to be addressed. In effect, the hon. Gentleman was saying that he had spotted what the clause was all about. He did not refer to paid time off, although that is what we are debating, but he disapproved of the fact that the employer should decide and he suspected that that is what the clause is all about. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He spotted precisely what the clause is all about. Despite the words that the lawyers choose for us, the principle is simple enough. If the employer is expected to give paid time off for matters for which he has recognised the union, it is right that it should be only for those matters for which he has recognised the union. The employer has decided to recognise the union for those purposes, so it is complete nonsense that, merely because an employer recognises a union for one purpose, he should suddenly find that in practice he is obliged to pay for some other purpose.
    The underlying purpose of clause 10 and the amendments is to ensure that, if an employer recognises a

    165
    union for a particular purpose, that is the purpose for which paid time off is given. Ultimately the employer pays the wages. I am not hiding it from the hon. Gentleman that the employer should be entitled to say to the trade union,
    "I recognise you for this purpose; therefore, you are entitled to paid time off. I do not recognise you for that purpose; therefore, you are not."
    When I moved the amendments formally I said that they were technical. They are technical. At the same time I accept that they are complex, but I trust that, even at this hour, I have given the House some elucidation. We shall find out in a moment or two whether I have given any comfort.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 30.

    Division No. 226]

    [2.24 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Lilley, Peter

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Amos, Alan

    Lye Sir Nicholas

    Arbuthnot, James

    Maclean, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Ashby, David

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Boswell, Tim

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Bottomley, Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Brazier, Julian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Bright, Graham

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Chapman, Sydney

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Neubert, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Devlin, Tim

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Norris, Steve

    Durant, Tony

    Paice, James

    Favell, Tony

    Patnick, Irvine

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Raffan, Keith

    Forth, Eric

    Redwood, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Freeman, Roger

    Ryder, Richard

    French, Douglas

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Gill, Christopher

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Gregory, Conal

    Shersby, Michael

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Hague, William

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Summerson, Hugo

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Harris, David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Thurnham, Peter

    Heddle, John

    Trippier, David

    Hind, Kenneth

    Trotter, Neville

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

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Waller, Gary

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Irvine, Michael

    Watts, John

    Jack, Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Wood, Timothy

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Knapman, Roger

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Knowles, Michael

    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Mr. Michael Fallon.

    Lightbown, David

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Battle, John

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Buckley, George J.

    Barron, Kevin

    Clay, Bob

    166

    Clelland, David

    Nellist, Dave

    Cryer, Bob

    Redmond, Martin

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Richardson, Jo

    Dixon, Don

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foster, Derek

    Strang, Gavin

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Wallace, James

    Home Robertson, John

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Howells, Geraint

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Illsley, Eric

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Kennedy, Charles

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    McCartney, Ian

    Mrs. Llin Golding and

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Meale, Alan

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 31, in page 9, line 11, leave out from 'with' to 'section' in line 12 and insert
    `negotiations with the employer that are related to or connected with any matters which fall within'.
    No. 32, in page 9, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—
    '(ii) any other duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with the performance, on behalf of employees of the employer, of any functions that are related to or connected with any matters falling within that provision and that the employer has agreed may be so performed by the trade union;'.—[Mr. Lee.]

  Clause 16

    PRE-HEARING REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
    Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 35 in page 12, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—

    `(i) by the Tribunal; or

    (ii) as determined in accordance with the regulations, by any chairman being a member of the panel of chairmen.'.

    Madam Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 36, in page 12, line 31, leave out '£150' and insert '£50'.
    No. 38, in page 12, line 42, after 'order', insert
    `but the sum so specified shall not exceed 2% of the s am for the time being prescribed for the purposes of section 75(1) of this Act.'.
    No. 37, in line 42, at end add—
    `(4) Where regulations are made which authorise the making of an order of the kind referred to in subparagraph (2)(a) above, nothing in this Act or in those regulations shall authorise the making of such an order unless—

    (a) the party against whom the order is made has had not less than 3 weeks' notice of the pre-hearing review, or has agreed in writing to waive such notice;

    (b) that party has had an opportunity to appear in person or be represented at the pre-hearing review, or to submit written representations if he so elects;

    (c) the tribunal or person which makes the order has made such enquiries as are reasonable in the circumstances, including his financial obligations, and is satisfied that—

    (i) it is reasonably practical for that party to pay the deposit within the time within which it is ordered to be paid;

    (ii) undue hardship will not be caused to that party if the deposit is paid by him and is not refunded to him;

    (d) the tribunal or person which makes the orders considers in the light of the originating application and entry of appearance, any representations in writing which have been submitted and oral argument advanced by or on behalf of a Party, that

    167
    the contentions or any particular contentions of the party against whom the order is made appear or appears to have no reasonable prospect of success.'.

    No. 39 in page 15, line 21, after 'Act', insert—
    `(c) an order under section 16(3) which increases the sum specified in paragraph 1A(2)(a) of Schedule 9 to the 1978 Act.
    Mr. Wallace: The amendment relates to the administrative and initial arrangements in clause 16 for pre-hearings before industrial tribunals. Its purpose is to ensure that, when determining whether a case receives a pre-hearing review, that determination shall be carried out only by the tribunal or by a chairman who is a member of the panel.
    The clause as drafted makes provision for the promulgation of regulations permitting
    "such persons as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations"
    to conduct a pre-hearing review. That vague phrase could cover a multitude of sinners as well as a multitude of virtuous people. It would be unsatisfactory to leave that form of words unamended. The British Institute of Management feels that it would be better if we retained the present system of informal discussions that often take place before a tribunal goes ahead, rather than the formalised structure set out in the clause.
    However, if we are to have an institutionalised pre-hearing review, it should be undertaken by the appropriate body—either by the tribunal or by those who, because of their qualifications and experience, have been selected to be members of the panel of chairmen, and that would be the effect of amendment No. 35.
    Amendment No. 36 would reduce the deposit which any pre-hearing review could impose from £150 to £50. The history of this provision is somewhat chequered. When the Government first proposed the idea of a threshold fee, they suggested £25 but thought that it should be paid by all comers; there was to be no element of discretion. That proposal met with little approval when it went out for consultation, and it was rejected. In the light of that, the Government thought again and proposed that it be increased from £25 to £150, but making it conditional on the outcome of a pre-hearing review, no doubt on the basis that they were trying to weed out frivolous or vexatious claims.
    One might have thought that before going ahead with a proposal which, in an almost novel way, introduced a financial threshold that a person must cross before putting his or her case to a tribunal, there would have been an overwhelming body of evidence to show that under the present arrangements there was widespread abuse. But there does not appear to be much authority for that proposition.
    Indeed, the bodies which have made comments on this provision—for example, the employment committee of the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland—have commented that there is no body of evidence to suggest that there has been a great number of frivolous cases clogging up the tribunal system. Those bodies, along with others, find it a regrettable precedent that we are introducing into our system of justice this admission fee before people can take their case to a proper hearing.
    In many respects it would be better if there were no deposit at all and if this review did not exist. But, if there is to be a deposit, it is our contention that £50 would be easier to find for less well-off employees, who, perhaps
    168
    because they have become unemployed, are much more likely to be involved in tribunal cases. Whether the Government may say about its being wrongly put about that in every case there will be a £150 deposit—I accept that that is not what is proposed here—one knows full well that that sort of idea gains currency. That in itself might deter people from taking the initial step in trying to achieve justice, as they see it, in the case of a claimed wrong. People with valid claims might never get to the stage of lodging them.
    Therefore, we propose a sum which is much more realistic, although it would be very difficult for many people to find even £50 and possibly they would have to be given some time to pay. But it would be more within their ability to pay than the sum proposed in the Bill as it stands.
    At this point I should refer to amendment No. 38, which I have no doubt the Minister will suggest contradicts what I have just said about amendment No. 36. I accept that there is a contradiction and something of a fallback position in amendment No. 38, because if the 2 per cent. figure were to apply in present circumstances the sum would be £170 rather than £150. We have sought to put this in because, as things stand, the Secretary of State could by regulation and subject to the negative procedure, amend the sum of the deposit from £150 to any figure at all by substituting
    "such other sum as is specified in the order."
    No limit is put on it, and it is unsatisfactory that that carte blanche should be given to the Minister subject only to the briefest scrutiny in the Committee on Statutory Instruments, which would not be allowed to amend and would have only a limited opportunity to discuss the principle behind it. That is why we have suggested that there should be an attempt to link the deposit to the award payable, so that if there is any suggestion that the deposit should go up it would be necessary to increase the maximum award. That would impose a realistic restraint on the actions of any future Secretary of State, or indeed the present one, if he sought to abuse the procedure which is set down here.
    Amendment No. 39, if carried, would make it necessary for these regulations or any substitution sum to be subject to the affirmative procedure. This would indicate the importance of this as a fundamental principle of justice not just related to the question of industrial tribunals. We are dealing here with people's rights and it is an important departure in the administration of justice in this country. It is not an incidental matter and when we are dealing with such a fundamental matter the affirmative procedure is much more appropriate.
    The only amendment to which I have not yet referred is No. 37. This is an important amendment because it seeks to set some parameters within which the pre-hearing review must operate. It ensures, for example, that the basic precepts of natural justice are observed and that adequate time is given by one party to the other if a pre-hearing review is sought with the likelihood of a deposit ensuing. It ensures the right to representation or, if there is no representation, the right either to be heard or to make written representation. It tries to ensure that orders are not made against people who cannot realistically comply with them, in which case a deposit really amounts to a dismissal of the claim. The amendment proposes that it would be incumbent on the tribunal or the chairman to ensure that such a sum was not imposed if the effect would be that the claimant was unable to take the claim any further. It also

    169
    proposes that deposits would be imposed only in circumstances in which costs awards could be made under the present rules.
    2.45 am
    Much of what is proposed in clause 16 is a sorry departure from the present system. There is no evidence that the present system is being abused and Opposition Members—of whom there are still a number here even at this late hour—regret very much that a fee is to be introduced into our system. Given that that is the case, and although it is perhaps optimism triumphing over reality, given the Government's attitude to any Opposition amendments, we tried to propose a halfway house, and to put some parameters and restraints on the Government's proposals. It is in that spirit that we move the amendments.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has raised a number of points on the amendments and I will do my best to deal with them.
    Clause 16 as drafted gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations authorising pre-hearing reviews to be carried out either by the tribunal chairman or by the full tribunal, which would obviously include the lay members as well as the chairman. That is also the effect of amendment No. 35, so to that extent it is difficult to see the difference in substance between the amendment and the Government's proposal, although, if I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he was concerned that there was reference in clause 16 to "such person", which may have raised a doubt in his mind about what was intended. We are advised that that formula has to be used because the regional chairman might be sitting and the regional chairman is separately defined under the regulations, or the president himself could be referred to. That is why that formulation is used. Clause 16, as drafted, already does what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Amendment No. 36 is, as the hon. Gentleman said, a halfway house. It proposes to reduce from £150 to £50 the maximum deposit for a pre-hearing to be ordered. I dare say that the hon. Gentleman would think it rather ungenerous of me to say that if he is prepared to concede the principle of a deposit, our judgment is as good as his. He would say that he does not concede the principle, but lives in the real and practical world and hopes that Ministers do as well. If one concedes, if only for the purposes of the argument, that some deposit is appropriate, it is a question of where one draws the line. Neither £50 nor £150 is a princely sum. In each case, the sum would be only a maximum. There is no question of a tribunal being under an obligation to order a sum at all. Although it may seem to be the judgment of Solomon, we take the view that £150 is right.
    Amendment No. 37 seems to us to be unnecessary because virtually all the matters that it covers would be covered by regulations which are due to be made under clause 16 in any event.
    The Government take the view that amendment No. 38 unduly fetters the discretion of the Secretary of State in determining the size of the maximum deposit. It would also be unnecessarily complicated. I accept that the amendment is ingenious, but it is difficult to see the logic in trying to enshrine in law a mathematical relationship between the compensatory award maximum and the deposit maximum.
    170
    Clause 16 allows the Secretary of State from time to time to alter the limit on the amount of a deposit, and clause 21(4) makes any order altering the limit subject to the negative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 39 would provide that the draft of any such order would have to be laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament. This debate echoes a number of debates that we had in Committee about whether the affirmative or the negative procedure should be used. Someone—it may even have been me—suggested that such debates entailed an element of ritual and that, in the unlikely event that our roles were ever reversed, Ministers might one day be Opposition Back Benchers and arguing the opposite view. Lively though my imagination is, I cannot encompass that prospect at this time in the morning.
    The Government regard this as precisely the sort of matter that should be dealt with by the negative resolution procedure. Therefore, while I should have liked to tell the hon. Gentleman that his optimism would triumph over his experience, I cannot recommend his amendments to the House.
    Ms. Richardson: It is rather unfair of the Minister to hint that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was abandoning the principle of opposition to the £150 deposit. I do not think that he was. He was at pains to say that this was an honest attempt to arrive at a halfway house. Let me say to him and to the Government that the Opposition Members also stick by the principle that we are opposed to the £150 deposit. Like the hon. Gentleman, we should have preferred the clause to he deleted. Nevertheless, the amendments represent a good way of rehearsing our extensive arguments in Committee and of placing on record the opposition that remains to the concept of a deposit of the size envisaged in the Bill.
    It is all very well for the Minister, in a fairly light-hearted way, to dismiss £150 as not much. To the majority of working people, £150 is quite a lot. To many people, £50 is quite a lot. To suggest that it does not amount to much more than a row of beans—I am not saying that the Minister used those words; he did not—is to underestimate its importance. I remind the Minister that during the consultation procedure a number of prestigious bodies expressed their opposition. The British Institute of Management was not totally opposed to a deposit but argued that it would be much more of an obstacle for an employee than for an employer. We can all echo that. The BIM also suggested that employers might automatically apply for an order.
    The Engineering Employers Federation felt that, although the £150 deposit would not deter those backed by a union, it might deter—would deter—those who were not unionised but
    "might have a genuine case".
    Given the Government's antipathy to unions, one would have expected them to give a little thought to those who are not unionised.
    The TUC, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux were wholeheartedly against the £150 and the Government would have been wiser to listen to their advice. As it is, the Government will oppose the amendments, which will be lost in the mists of time—whatever time it is now. We shall have to see what happens. If statistics are kept after the

    171
    provision for a deposit becomes law, I am sure that they will show that many genuine cases will not be taken to a tribunal.
    We must recognise that not only will many of those faced with a £150 demand not be able to pay it, but that many people will not even take their cases to a tribunal because of the possibility of that deposit being demanded. Although the Minister has said that it is a deposit and that £150 is the maximum, it will deter people.
    We want a system of industrial democracy that does not result in any employee, whether or not unionised, being deterred from pursuing his or her rights as he or she perceives them. The clause is just another way of the Government putting blocks in the way of the employed and giving an advantage to the employers. We should prefer the clause to be deleted but, given that that is not a possibility because our amendment was not selected, we shall wholeheartedly support these amendments.
    Mr. Haynes: I am not surprised that we are debating such important amendments, which I welcome. The Opposition are opposed to any deposit. It is immoral of the Government to impose a deposit of £150. Ministers have their heads in the clouds; they do not have their feet on the ground; they do not understand the problems of low-paid workers. The Government do not want workers to belong to a trade union and encourage them not to be.
    When I was a trade union official in the mining industry in the Nottingham area, members made their contributions each week and that entitled them to certain benefits. If the deposit had been law then, one benefit would have been that the union would probably have paid the f150. That is what happens in the trade union movement. The Ministers belonged to a closed shop in their previous professions and are, perhaps, still associated with those professional organisations. I cannot understand why they argue against the closed shop in trade unions. The closed shop means protection for members. The Government are imposing a penalty of £150 on workers who have had a shoddy deal from their employers and have had to take their cases to an industrial tribunal. It is immoral, although I am no longer surprised by many of the Government's actions.
    3 am
    The Government encourage low pay for workers. We have plenty of low-paid workers. If a worker is not in a trade union, he will have to find £150, probably just after losing his job. Where does the Minister get his ideas from? Has he really thought this out? He is nodding his head but I do not think that he has thought it out. He has not got his feet on the ground. He has not worked in the areas in which many Opposition Members have worked. We understand fully the implication of a £150 deposit.
    It annoys me when I hear the Secretary of State for Social Security shooting his mouth off about how well off people are. We have poverty in this nation. We have people on very low earnings. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), the Minister responsible for tourism, is encouraging more and more people into tourism to work for very low wages. If there is an unfair dismissal and the person wants to go to the tribunal, how the hell does the Minister think that that person will manage to get a fair deal? The worker will not be able to go to the tribunal
    172
    because he cannot afford the £150. We must remember that there is always the danger that he will lose, even though he has a first-class case. That is why the £150 deposit is immoral.
    I am surprised—no, I am not surprised that this is happening under the mob that we have in government. Mark my words; when we kick out that lot on the Government Benches—
    Mr. Lee: Never.
    Mr. Haynes: The Minister will eat his words one day. He might be one of those who will go and who may have to go back into practice again, with nice, big, cosy earnings in the closed shop.
    Mr. McCartney: At £150 an hour.
    Mr. Haynes: Yes, representing employers at tribunals, getting rich pickings. We are talking about people in the lower income group who are in serious financial difficulty. It is not funny; it is a serious matter. The Minister should be in a position to find out about poverty. I know what it is all about, as my father did before me. I have lived in poverty; I have breathed it and slept in it. I know how people are suffering when they are not getting the earnings that they should.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says—I think that he knows that I am a lifelong trade unionist—but does not he accept that there is another side to the matter? With all the new responsibilities, rules, regulations, restrictions and conditions that are being imposed on the United Kingdom Parliament and Government in consequence of EEC directives, as most of the Bill is, employers will spend all their time going to tribunals instead of getting on with the job of production. The hon. Gentleman's party has new enthusiasm for all this nonsensical bureaucracy that is making the life of industry a nightmare. Does he accept that there is another side to the story and that perhaps something should be done about it?
    Mr. Haynes rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will not be tempted to broaden the debate.
    Mr. Haynes: You have jumped the gun, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand why. The hon. Gentleman has an argument and he is using it and he is trying to use me as well, but I am not going down the EEC road tonight. I do not think it would be fair. But I understand why the hon. Member for—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Southend."] I am talking about the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I know, because he has said it so often before. We have had debates in the early morning on these directives from Europe.
    The point is that I maintain my argument and I will never change. The Conservatives will never change, but we will change the system in here—that lot will be over here and we will be over there. We will put things right, and I promise the Minister that it will happen at the next election, because the people outside have had enough. They do not want any more, but they have three more years, so we will have to make the best of it. However, there is worse and worse to come. With such proposals as this, matters will get worse and worse. A lot of people in

    173
    my constituency are suffering under the Government, and here they go again—a lower-paid worker must pay a deposit of £150 to fight a case which it is possible that he might lose. It really is immoral.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said at the Dispatch Box only a few minutes before I started to say my piece that what the Government were doing is wrong and that we do not accept that that payment should be made. It is not fair, it is completely immoral, and I believe that we should vote for the amendment. I hope that some of the Conservative Members will change their minds and see the unfairness involved. I am living in hope, I know. If they are honest with themselves, they will vote with us tonight on these amendments. [Interruption.] They will probably not have enough for a closure, because they are dipping very fast. There were 103 at the last count. The Government Chief Whip has a job to get out there and get them in, in the hope that they will win a vote tonight, because at the moment they are on a loser. Conservative Members are going down and down, but we are still here fighting on behalf of the people we represent, especially those lower-paid workers.
    Mr. McCartney: They could not raise a deposit between them.
    Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend is quite correct. I think that you have had enough of me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Haynes: I think that I will stay a bit longer, because they are a bit upset over yonder. The Minister always tells me that he loves Frank Haynes to be called. He knows that I will have a go at him, but I am a different man in here from what I am outside, because in here I fight like a dog for what I believe in—a mad dog too, perhaps. I will fight for what I believe in in the same way as the great grandfather of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) did. He must be turning in his grave at some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has done in this Chamber. The great grandfather of the hon. Gentleman was a fighter for the working class people, especially the lower paid workers. When I was a young lad, people worked in the pits for peanuts. Safety came last and profits were at the top of the list for the coal owners. That is what Toryism is all about. People, especially in this country, know what Socialism is about, and, by God, soon they will get some more Socialism and we will get some more fairness in the interests of the people and not just of certain individuals.
    A lot of the company bosses are feeding money into the Conservative party funds, and there is a connection here. I believe that the Minister has taken that point well home. I think that he understands what I am trying to say to him. The message is coming over to the electorate loud and clear. The next election cannot come soon enough, and we will win it. The tragedy is that I will not be coming back here after it. I have enjoyed my time here and I will enjoy what is left. No doubt, in the future I will have something to say to the Minister about his policies.
    I am asking the Government to back off and accept what we have said. The amendment does not go as far as I would like, but at least the Democrats are going part of the way.
    Mr. Barron: They are Liberals.
    Mr. Haynes: No, they tell me that they are Democrats. I am not going to argue about it. The Democrats are going part of the way. Because the Labour amendment has not been selected, we are forced to go along with the Democrats' suggestion. We support them to the hilt. We will be in the Division Lobby with them, and I hope that some Tories will be with us.
    Mr. Wallace: I think that the Minister said that if Ministers lived in the real world, hope would triumph—he went on to prove that they do not—but he made that comment late at night and perhaps did not mean to phrase it in that way. It outlined what many of us have found throughout the debate—no matter how reasonable we try to make our amendments, the Government do not meet them even a third or a half of the way.
    As for the real world, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made a valid point—
    Mr. Haynes: Several.
    Mr. Wallace: Several valid points, but one in particular about the £150. We are talking about people not just on low pay but on no pay, which is why they go to an industrial tribunal. That sum may be the maximum amount to be paid, but it is a colossal sum for them. Its imposition may debar people from seeking justice.
    I am not always satisfied by assurances from Ministers that "these matters will appear in regulations." If that is so, the Government should have nothing to fear in laying down statutory parameters. I accept the Minister's comment that the term "such person" is necessary to cover this group of chairmen of tribunals. For that reason, I will not seek a Division on amendment No. 35. Amendment No. 36 goes more to the heart of what we have been driving at. Although we would prefer to have no deposit, our proposal is more realistic than the Government's provision.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed, No. 36, in page 12, line 31, leave out '£150' and insert £50'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 106.

    Division No. 227]

    [3.13 am

    AYES

    Alton, David

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Meale, Alan

    Barron, Kevin

    Nellist, Dave

    Cryer, Bob

    Richardson, Jo

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dixon, Don

    Strang, Gavin

    Foster, Derek

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Haynes, Frank

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Home Robertson, John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Howells, Geraint

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

    McCartney, Ian

    Mr. James Wallace.

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Bottomley, Peter

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Amos, Alan

    Bright, Graham

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Ashby, David

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Devlin, Tim

    Boswell, Tim

    Dorrell, Stephen

    175

    Durant, Tony

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Moss, Malcolm

    Forth, Eric

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Neale, Gerrard

    Freeman, Roger

    Neubert, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Gill, Christopher

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Norris, Steve

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Paice, James

    Gregory, Conal

    Patnick, Irvine

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Raffan, Keith

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Redwood, John

    Hague, William

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Ryder, Richard

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Harris, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Heddle, John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Shersby, Michael

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

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Speller, Tony

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Irvine, Michael

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Jack, Michael

    Summerson, Hugo

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Knapman, Roger

    Thurnham, Peter

    Knowles, Michael

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Trippier, David

    Lightbown, David

    Trotter, Neville

    Lilley, Peter

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Waller, Gary

    Maclean, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Watts, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Wells, Bowen

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Wood, Timothy

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mills, Iain

    Mr. Michael Fallon and

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 18
    DISSOLUTION OF TRAINING COMMISSION
    Amendment made: No. 18, in page 13, line 27, leave out ", apart from this section,".—[Mr. Fowler.]
  Schedule 5

    DISSOLUTION OF TRAINING COMMISSION: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
    Amendments made: No. 19, in page 26, line 11, leave out ',
    in relation to any time falling on or after that date'.
    No. 20, in page 26, line 25, leave out
    'office or place of business'
    and insert "principal office".—[Mr. Fowler.]

  Clause 19

    TRANSFER OF STAFF EMPLOYED IN SKILLS TRAINING AGENCY
    Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 13, line 30, leave out clause 19.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 24, in page 14, line 7, at end insert—
    176
    `(2A) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the continuation of a "Skillcentre Network.".'.
    No. 26, in page 14, line 10, at end insert—
    '(3B) After the transfer of an undertaking, civil service terms and conditions of employment shall continue to apply, unless altered by negotiation and agreement with the relevant trade unions.'.
    No. 27, in page 14, line 10, at end insert—
    '(3C) After the transfer of an undertaking, civil service pension arrangements shall continue to apply, unless altered by negotiation and agreement with the relevant trade unions.'.
    No. 28, in page 14, line 19, at end insert—
    'The Secretary of State shall make such arrangements as necessary to ensure that after a transfer of an undertaking, the same amount and quality of training is delivered.'.
    No. 29, in page 14, line 40, at end insert—
    '(9) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has established a body of relevant organisations to monitor the training services delivered after the transfer of an undertaking.'.
    Mr. Strang: Clause 19 follows from the Government's decision to privatise skill centres, which we deeply deplore and which has important consequences for the staff employed at them, who are currently civil servants.
    The proposal stems from the Government's announcement in last December's White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" indicating their intention to privatise the Skills Training Agency. However, their arguments were flawed.
    The White Paper stated:
    "The Skills Training Agency would be in a better position to seize these opportunities if it were to move into the private sector where it could adopt the best commercial practices. The Government are therefore taking professional advice on the feasibility of such a move."
    In essence, the Government are free to run the agency as they wish. It is within their power to decide that, and whether or not the agency is in the public sector does not really matter. If the Government want the agency to be run as a commercial operation, they have only to instruct the civil servants in charge to run it that way. If the Government want the agency to concentrate on certain areas where a need for greater training provision has been identified, they have only instruct the people who run it to do that instead.
    I make that point because sometimes it is suggested that it is impossible to run an activity in the public sector commercially or efficiently. British Airways is currently operating very efficiently in the private sector under the chairmanship of Lord King, but before its privatisation, the Government gave British Airways a remit to slim down and become profitable. British Airways operated in the public sector, in preparation for privatisation, as a relatively efficient, profitable and slimmed-down company. It could have continued doing so in the public sector. That illustrates that there is nothing in the argument that the Skills Training Agency must be moved into the private sector before it can perform in a certain way. It will do so anyway if the people running it are asked to make it function in a specific way; and if the Government are not satisfied with their performance, they can be replaced by people having the wherewithal and ability to make it do so.
    Our main reason for opposing the clause is that all the evidence, including the Government's own documents, suggests that British business has failed adequately to invest in training, and that its record is poor by comparison with its European competitors. In those circumstances, how on earth can it make sense to remove from the public sector a training provision that the

    177
    Government can influence and transfer it to the private sector—when the record of private training sector even in the Government's eyes, and certainly in ours, is poor?
    With the agency taking over the responsibilities of the Training Commission, a substantial proportion of the so-called national task force now comprises large, private industrial companies. Having acknowledged that, apart from some notable exceptions, British business has failed to take training sufficiently seriously, it seems a remarkable conclusion to put the people who have apparently failed in charge, or at least to give them a major say over the Government's expenditure on training and at the same time to move out of the public sector the skill centres which are wholly owned by the Government and through which the Government can lay down what training should be provided.
    3.30 am
    The argument that the agency is losing money does not stand up as it is a wholly artificial exercise. The Secretary of State's announcement referred to the fact that the agency had made a profit in some years but had made a substantial loss in others. I do not have the figures to hand, but I recall that it made a profit in 1987–88 or 1988–89. That was partly accounted for by the fact that the Manpower Services Commission was committed to using the skill centres to provide some of the training that it was financing.
    In the current year, the gross cost of the training centres is about £53 million, whereas the Government's planned expenditure for the Training Agency is £2,860 million. It is an artificial point to argue that the skill centres are losing money. One could stop them losing money by instructing the managers to organise the scheme or slim it down so that it would no longer lose money. Alternatively, one could acknowledge that the Government are spending a substantial sum of money on training and that it may make sense to use some of that money to provide opportunities at the skill centres that are not available elsewhere and cost money. The argument that the skill centres should necessarily be profitable is not valid.
    The skill centres have existed for a long time. They first came into being in the aftermath of the first world war. They have a good record. Some excellent people work in the skill centres, which have provided tremendous opportunities and valuable training, particularly for the long-term unemployed. Many women have been able to acquire the necessary skills for jobs which are usually carried out by men, and we would all encourage that. Skill centres can be proud of the contribution which they have made to training in Britain over the years.
    That is not to say that one should accept the current arrangements or concede that the training courses and facilities which they currently provide are the right ones for the 1990s. However, while they are part of the Civil Service, and part of the Government, at least the Government can decide what facilities are provided in these centres. There is no question but that in many localities skill centres have identified skills shortages and have made a significant contribution to training the most difficult people to train, such as those who have been unemployed for some time. We reject the Government's approach. It is ludicrous for them to argue that they can enhance and improve training provision in this country by
    178
    privatising a fraction of the training facilities that accounts for a small proportion of Government expenditure on training.
    It is clear that training provision will be privatised, and it would be helpful if, in the time available—we do not wish unduly to prolong proceedings—the Minister said a little more about the progress of the management buyout. He explained in Committee that the Government are quite happy that the deputy chief executive, Mr. Bishell, is leading a management buy-out, which would rule out the purchase of local skill centres by local consortia. Is that still the most likely option? I know that the Government are not excluding further options, even at this late stage.
    Labour Members should like an assurance that assets will not be disposed of at knockdown values and that the market value of sites will be reflected in their sale price. Under the British Aerospace privatisation, assets were sold for a price below that implied in the overall package. The Minister should give an assurance that sites—the market value of some of which is quite favourable—will not be disposed of at knockdown prices. I have heard one or two suggested figures for skill centres and sites that are, to put it mildly, well below what one would expect the assets to realise if they were sold separately in the market.
    We are not trying to impose an undue burden on the new outfit. We are opposed to privatisation, but once it goes ahead it is in everyone's interests that it should provide more training. We are worried that, assets having been acquired, there will be a gradual process of rationalisation and asset-stripping and that the privatised operation will make a reduced contribution, quantitatively if not qualitatively, to training.
    Clause 19 is not about privatisation but about the terms and conditions of employment of civil servants employed in the centres. It ensures that when skill centres are transferred to their new owners, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 are employed for all staff. However, because civil servants often enjoy better conditions than they might in the private sector, and because we fear that the service offered by skill centres will suffer, we are proposing amendments to safeguard the rights of employees and the standards of service that they offer.
    Amendment No. 24 would mean that the Secretary of State would have to make arrangements for the continuation of a skill centre network. We believe that privatisation will be followed by the breaking up of the national effect on retraining into a service that ranges widely in quality from area to area. The amendment should cause the Government no problems if they are committed to the continuation of national training, while allowing for separate management.
    Amendment No. 28 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that privatised skill centres will provide the same amount and quality of training.
    Amendment No. 29 would greatly assist the Minister in pursuit of that goal. It provides for the setting up of a watchdog body for monitoring the training services that are delivered after privatisation. We do not specify which organisations should sit on that body, but say only "relevant" organisations. We have in mind a body along the lines of that which was set up to monitor the performance of British Telecom when it was privatised, and feel that it should comprise representatives of trade unions, the unemployed and employers' representatives to

    179
    safeguard against the sort of defects that we believe are apparent in the body that is supposed to be supervising British Telecom.
    We have advanced amendment No. 26, which concerns the terms and conditions of employment of civil servants who are currently employed in connection with skill centres. Amendment No. 27 relates to their pensions. Both amendments state that they will continue to apply unless they have been altered by negotiation and agreement with the relevant trade unions.
    We recognise that the Government have given certain undertakings, and the purpose of the clause is to ensure that the civil servants retain their accrued rights in relation to pensions, redundancy and employment conditions. However, as the Minister said in Committee, after privatisation anything can happen. We want to tie the Minister down more clearly because we believe that there should be some commitment to the civil servants which goes beyond the point of transfer.
    In Committe the Minister made a statement on pensions. He said that they
    "must be covered separately by arrangements in the terms of sale. The details will be a matter for the sale negotiations, but…arrangements to provide for pension terms which, taken overall, are comparable with those that apply now will be part of the conditions of sale."
    If we are to accept that rather bland assurance, amendment No. 27 would give it some substance while offering new employers some flexibility. Unfortunately, there is nothing in this or any other Bill that would guarantee civil servants similar pension rights, and they and their unions are right to be sceptical of the Government's real commitment and intentions.
    As the proposals stand, anybody with more than two years' service can leave the pension rights that they have accrued in the Civil Service scheme. Employees with less than two years' service do not have that right. I put it to the Minister that one can leave one's rights in other pension schemes after less than two years; so why is it necessary to have a cut-off of two years?
    Similarly, we ask the Government to match their words with actions and accept amendment No. 26 on the terms and conditions of employment—of which pensions do not form a part. Again, we suggest that it will be only a matter of time before those rights are eroded.
    On the question whether a privatised civil servant will be required to move willy-nilly under the new management, the Minister gave a curious answer in Committee. He said:
    "The position will remain broadly the same when they move to new ownership but may change slightly, particularly if the network is not the same as it is now."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 March 1989; c. 532.]
    Given that the network is highly unlikely to remain unchanged, where does that leave the movement of employees of skill centres?
    It may not be unprecedented—I hope that the Minister will say what the precedents are—but this is a remarkable and traumatic issue for the civil servants. There are many instances in the implementation of such a policy where civil servants are given some choice. They can take redundancy or obtain a transfer into another area of the Civil Service, remaining civil servants.
    But these civil servants are not being given that choice. They are being compulsorily privatised. The Minister
    180
    probably knows already that many of them deeply resent that. Many believe in the idea of public service. They want to be civil servants. They like being civil servants and they are deeply angry that, without any warning or mandate, they can be suddenly told that on a particular day, which is not far off now, they will cease to be civil servants, even if they would rather have continued as civil servants, perhaps in some other area of the Department of Employment's general activities or some other area of the Civil Service.
    It is highly unsatisfactory that that should be the plight of people in the Civil Service, and I refer not just to those in the higher echelons of the service but to people with a commitment to working in the public service, who believe that by working as civil servants, particularly in this area, they have a valuable role to fulfil.
    In the past I was in contact with instructors in the establishments, through the links I had with the old Civil Service Union. Many of those people are dedicated to their task and it is deeply regrettable that they should find themselves compulsorily transferred to a private organisation. We cannot know what the future holds for such an organisation because inherent in the exercise is the fact that once it is sold off, it must operate independently in the market place. Indeed, we have no guarantee that it will continue to provide training in 10 or 20 years hence.
    This proposal was brought forward as a new clause during the final stages of the Committee stage debates. We are glad of this opportunity to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. The Minister has an obligation to the House to deal with these issues, but he has a wider obligation to the staff, the trade unions and the country to answer the questions that we have asked.
    3.45 am
    Mr. McCartney: It is a tragedy that at 3.45 in the morning we should be debating the issue of training in Britain and the demise of a co-ordinated national training effort which has involved the public and private sectors, local authorities and Government in the development of employment and training initiatives.
    I was in local government for six years and worked closely on issues of this type, including with the MSC on general employment projects and on the technical and vocational education initiative. I found it vital to have local authorities involved with the Training Commission and private employers to develop the education system so that it became able to meet the needs of industry. I found it an uplifting experience.
    It is regrettable that, because of their policies, the Government have tended to withdraw from that type of close co-operation between local authorities and the public sector in general. They are now trying to organise it solely on the basis of the market place, and that will prove to be a tragedy in the short and long-term. After all, our competitors in Europe and further afield are not leaving their training initiatives to market forces. They appreciate the need to co-ordinate and develop employment and training initiatives as an entity to enhance the development of their economies.
    It is tragic that the Government should be taking these steps at a time when we have major skill shortages in various parts of the country. That is the case, for example, in the north-west, because of 10 years of decline and lack of investment, while in other areas there continues to be a

    181
    lack of skilled manpower even though local economies are booming. The shortfalls in the YTS and the short-term nature of earlier training schemes have left us with a skill base lower than we had 10 years ago. That will act to the long-term detriment of the public and private sectors.
    With the abolition of the metropolitan authorities, we saw, for example, in Greater Manchester, the ending overnight of joint initiatives between the MSC and the local authority. Millions of pounds each year went into joint ventures and training at skill centres and places of employment. We have not recovered from the loss of that type of resource.
    We have a skill centre in my area. The local authority has developed round it, so to speak, a development company involving a major new initiative of an industrial estate. It is one of the most modern industrial estates in the north-west. Its infrastructure is superb and it is attracting new industry. The skill centre is linked with the information technology centres and a system has been developed whereby the local authority, through its employment initiatives with the private sector, is trying to develop a co-ordinated approach to training in our area. Yet at the same time there is an attempt by the Government to leave all this to market forces.
    Market forces by themselves are totally inadequate to deal with the needs of private industry and to link that with the resources being spent at the public level by local authorities and in some instances by Government so as to get the best value for money and develop in such a way that we involve as many people as possible in retraining, the rehabilitation of the long-term unemployed and the disabled and the development of new skills and techniques. This is essential in terms of the development of the economy.
    We have realised in the north-west, with the demise of much of our industry in textiles, heavy engineering and shipbuilding, the need to develop a different structure of employment in the region. That means the introduction of new skills and technology, but that cannot be achieved in either the short or the long term without a co-ordinated approach to training and the development of new skills and the provision of resources to identify those new skills and enable people to learn them.
    Amendment No. 24, if carried, would give us an opportunity to make sure that, although skill centres are privatised, the essential nature of the network is retained and they have a chance to work with the private sector, local authority and other public sector initiatives. Even though I am totally opposed to the idea of urban development corporations, while they exist they have a role to play in the development of the economy in the urban areas of Salford, Manchester, Liverpool and other such places. Their activities need to be co-ordinated with the work of skill centres and should not be completely divorced and left to market forces.
    It is also important that quality and quantity are not reduced. Over the last decade both the quality and the quantity of the training needed to develop the economic base of the regions have been reduced substantially in many parts of Britain. And we are faced with a Government privatising these organisations for ideological reasons and not looking at what is required in terms of a co-ordinated approach to training in the private and public sector.
    I look to the Minister to give me some assurances, given the unique role of the skill centres as the dynamo in my
    182
    local economy and the overspill effect that has occurred in terms of the other initiatives that have been taken, some in the past directly with the Government through the MSC, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment. We have seen over four or five years the development of such schemes and the involvement of both the private and the public sector, but the Government's proposals are putting an end to all this. There were approaches last year to the TUC about Government proposals interfering with the then role of the MSC, then deciding to get rid of the Training Commission and to privatise what is left of the skill centres. There seems no sense in the Government doing that and then not coming forward with initiatives to protect the present network of skill centres, which, in protecting that network, will protect the work done in the regions by skill centres and other organisations to enhance and develop new skills in local economies.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has asked the Minister for commitments on staff, which are important and are similar to the plea made recently about staff in the Department of Energy under the Electricity Bill. We are seeking not only a commitment on current staff, but a general commitment on the level of employment within the new, privatised skill centres. Unless there is a commitment about the level of employment and the quality of the trainers, the role of skill centres will be seriously undermined, as will the training that they provide and the quality and quantity of that provision.
    Over the past few years, there has been a tendency in some skill centres to cut short, often at short notice, some of the programmes that are being developed, as a result of cuts at some of the centres. That has led to many instances of the staff becoming demoralised and the people who are trying to take advantage of the schemes have found themselves in difficulties. They have had to come off schemes before they are completed, or are threatened with having to do so. That does not add up to a modern approach to training in new skills.
    One would expect such things to happen at the turn of the century, but not with training for the new technology for the next century and not when in Europe, the far east, the middle east, America and even central America, there are initiatives by Governments and industries that will undermine our export drive. We need to develop and strengthen our economy in the regions, yet at this very point, the Government are reducing resources overall and then asking us to accept that market forces will see us through. That is unacceptable.
    I want the Minister to give some commitments about the skill centres in the north-west, such as the one in my constituency, and to say what his intentions are about developing and building on initiatives taken by some local authorities—initiatives taken in good faith with his Department. Many capital resources and much ratepayers' money have been put into those initiatives, yet we are now uncertain about the Government's policy on skill centres. If the Minister gives us some undertakings on that, our worries will be eased. I view with some trepidation the decision of the Minister and the Government to opt out of developing a national policy on training, in terms of quality and quantity.
    Mr. Haynes: I see the proposal as part of the Ridley blueprint under which the Government, when they came

    183
    to office in 1979, were determined to destroy certain aspects of life before 1979. There is a very successful skill centre in the town of Kirkby-in-Ashfield in my constituency, with a first-class team providing training and giving an excellent service. I pay a tribute to the staff of that skill centre, and a tribute was paid by all the apprentices who went to the skill centre over a long period. Yet here, once again, the profit motive has now come into operation. It seems that because of the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), it has been done with indecent haste, without proper consultation with the people who are providing the service. The Government have gone ahead willy-nilly with the preparation for privatisation.
    It may be that some of the skill centres were losing money, but the important point is that they were providing a first-class service in the locality. Nottingham county council and Ashfield district council were doing a first-class job in conjunction with the skill centre in my constituency. We had a wonderful connection with the youth organisations. Everyone used to get together to discuss what they felt should be happening in the interests of youngsters leaving school, who could not find work but who were receiving expert training in the skill centre, and in the interest of adults who could not find work and needed to be retrained.
    4 am
    In addition, we had school involvement in my constituency and in Nottinghamshire generally. Local business was involved. Committees were set up, on which all the organisations were represented. They would feed information in with a view to helping to provide a better service. The one thing that stuck in the Government's craw was the involvement of the trade union movement in skill centres. Lo and behold, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, then Secretary of State for Employment, cut off many of the skill centres and destroyed the centre in Kirkby-in-Ashfield in my constituency. We were left without a skill centre, with nowhere for people to go. We provided a service from people outside the constituency as well; yet, here we go, into the private sector.
    The Government closed down many skill centres—just as they closed the pits—with a view to keeping hold of the profitable ones. They did that so they could fatten them up and hand them over, just as they have with electricity, water, gas and British Telecom. It happened to all those industries first, and now it is happening with skill centres, which I maintain are doing a first-class job.
    The thing that worries me most is that the Government will get away with it. They have the majority to do anything in this place. They do not listen to Opposition Members' sensible suggestions. I am sorry that I have sung the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to sleep. Perhaps he is simply closing his eyes and listening; I hope so, because Opposition Members have a real story to tell about skill centres.
    I am worried about the watchdog body that is to be set up once skill centres go into the private sector. I should like to know who its members will be. Will it be like the other groups that have been set up by the Government? It will probably consist of members of the Conservative party being paid off with a little job as part of a watchdog body
    184
    to see that the private sector does the job properly. It will probably be jobs for the boys with blue eyes, because the Conservative party's colour is blue. That is probably what will happen. The Government will look after the laddies who have served the Conservative party over the years. They will provide them with a job keeping an eye on the skill centres.
    I wonder, if that happens, whether they will do a proper job. If the Government get away with the proposal in the Bill, all manner of organisations need to be represented on the watchdog body—particularly the trade union movement. If I were a member of the Conservative party—
    Mr. Andy Stewart: We would not have you.
    Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman has woken up. He has been asleep since the debate began. He normally is. [Interruption.] I never interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he speaks, yet he is interrupting me. The hon. Gentleman is helping to close pits in the Nottingham area by voting for the Government's economy policy—[Interruption.] He is still shouting and bawling.
    I am concerned about the sort of people who will be appointed to serve on the watchdog body. There should be fair and proper representation across the board. If I were sitting on the Conservative Benches I should probably want management from different organisations to serve on that body. That is only fair because the Conservative party is in power. However, to make the body fair we also need those who represent trade unionists. I fear that it will not be fair if the Government do not go about this matter in the right way.
    The Government are moving skill centres into the private sector, where the profit motive will prevail. Will money be properly spent in the interests of the skill centres and the trainees? I hope that the Minister will assure us that the appointments to the watchdog body will be fair and that the profit motive will not prevail over a fair and proper system.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): I fully appreciate that Opposition Members do not accept the underlying policy of privatising the Skills Training Agency. The present position of the STA is unsustainable, and anyone who does not think that needs only to study the Public Accounts Committee report to discover the true position. It broke approximately even in 1987, but in the remainder of the past five years it spent a great deal more than its income. As the PAC pointed out, it has been subsidised surreptitiously by the MSC and the Training Commission, and the PAC rightly said that that should not continue.
    I was asked about the progress of the management buy-out. I understand that the initiative led by Mr. Bishell is proceeding. All contacts with potential purchasers—some 40 organisations have expressed interest—are being handled by Deloittes, which is advising the Government on the sale. I am not, therefore, in a position to comment on the individual prospective purchasers. Our position on the management buyout remain that which has been stated by myself and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Our professional advisers are preparing the necessary documents for the sale of assets, which include an up-to-date assessment of the value of every property. My

    185
    right hon. Friend gave a clear assurance to the House on 13 March that the Government would share in any development gains in the years immediately following the sale, and we propose to make provision for that. First we must get a valuation of all the properties. That is being done for us, following a competitive tender, by King and Company, which is advising on the property aspects of the sale.
    Clause 19 and most of the amendments relate to the protection of the staff. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained at the time of the announcement that he would table what has turned out to be clause 19. The purpose is to ensure that the staff of the STA are protected by the application of the Transfer to Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. That is basically what the clause does.
    My right hon. Friend also undertook to ensure through the contract of sale that all staff who transferred into the private sector are satisfactorily covered by pension arrangements. I am happy to repeat that undertaking in response to amendment No. 27.
    The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) referred to haste. We also heard references to the morale of the STA staff. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that it is very important that we should end the uncertainty that has hung over the STA not only since the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the White Paper to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) drew attention, but for a number of years because of its position. In the interests of the staff, apart from anything else, we should progress matters as fast as possible. That is an important aspect for us all to bear in mind.
    In his statement my right hon. Friend also made it clear that we want to preserve as many skill centres as we can to provide a national network. We agree with the Public Accounts Committee that there is no case for subsidising the skill centres. That is particularly so when about one third of them are seriously under-utilised. At the same time, we are anxious to make it clear that we are selling a training business. We are interested only in bids from people who want to run an effective training business. It is on that basis that we shall consider the bids. We want to see a continuing skill centre network in the private sector.
    We believe that it would he wrong to set in aspic the present amount and quality of training, as amendment No. 28 suggests. It seeks to permit no change at all, although I gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that that is not entirely what he had in mind. I have already made it clear that removing clause 19 from the Bill, as amendment No. 23 seeks, would not prevent the sale of the skill centres. The clause safeguards the position of staff who transfer with the business. It is similar to provisions that have been included in many of the previous privatisations. It is important to make clear what it does.
    The terms and conditions of employment and the collective agreements that apply at the time of transfer will be continued by regulations with the new employer. After the transfer, changes to the position that exists at that time will be a matter for agreement through the normal processes of collective bargaining, but it is not a case of anything happening then regardless, as was suggested.
    There is no compulsion on either side to reach a new agreement. If both sides are happy with the arrangements as they stand at the time of transfer, the same conditions
    186
    will continue. The process of reaching a fresh agreement is voluntary on both sides. Until then, the clause and the regulations will ensure that the existing arrangements will continue. Amendment No. 26 therefore becomes unnecessary.
    On amendment No. 27, I have already mentioned that occupational pensions are excluded from the Transfer to Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. They are not covered by what I have just said. However, I have referred also to the undertaking which has clearly been given not only by myself, but by the Secretary of State.
    4.15 am
    Amendment No. 29 provides for some sort of monitoring. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Ashfield who or what sort of person would be involved in the monitoring, because it is not our proposal. It is the proposal contained in amendment No. 29, which was moved by the Opposition. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was suspicious about who might be put on such a board and we might share that concern. However, it appears that amendment No. 29, in providing for such monitoring, displays a prejudiced view of the private sector. After all, the essential condition for success in the private sector is to provide what the customer wants to buy. The STA's potential customers will not want to purchase inadequate training that does not meet their needs. The customer is, in fact, the best monitor, and to satisfy him is what we are seeking to achieve.
    The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned TVEI, which does not really come into the amendment, but it is not for me to quarrel with that. However, in passing I assure him that TVEI certainly continues to develop and has a much larger budget than the STA—and a rising one. The Government are spending far more on training across the board than our predecessors did 10 years ago. We are, of course, developing the system. I do not always expect Opposition Members to like what we are doing, but to suggest that we have decreased the Government's involvement in training, including financially, when compared with 10 years ago, is entirely wrong. To speak as if the STA was the only public sector element in training and education is wrong. It is one, and, as the House knows, we are proposing to change its arrangements.
    We believe that the skill centres can best serve the training needs in all parts of the country by becoming more competitive and more viable training businesses, with a clear commercial focus and the ability to compete on level terms with other providers of training. However, it is important that the staff who transfer to the private sector have proper protection, which is what clause 19 achieves. I believe that it should stand unamended.
    Mr. Strang: It goes without saying that we are not persuaded by the Government's arguments, and we certainly will want to vote on the first amendment.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:
    The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 113.

    Division No. 228]

    [4.17 am

    AYES

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Cryer, Bob

    Home Robertson, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Dixon, Don

    McCartney, Ian

    Foster, Derek

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    187

    Meale, Alan

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Nellist, Dave

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Richardson, Jo

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Strang, Gavin

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Mr. Frank Haynes.

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Lilley, Peter

    Alton, David

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Amos, Alan

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Arbuthnot, James

    Maclean, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Ashby, David

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Baldry, Tony

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Batiste, Spencer

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Boswell, Tim

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Bottomley, Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Brazier, Julian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Bright, Graham

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Chapman, Sydney

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Neubert, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Devlin, Tim

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Durant, Tony

    Norris, Steve

    Favell, Tony

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Paice, James

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Forth, Eric

    Raffan, Keith

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Redwood, John

    Freeman, Roger

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    Rowe, Andrew

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Ryder, Richard

    Gill, Christopher

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Gregory, Conal

    Shersby, Michael

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Speller, Tony

    Hague, William

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Harris, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Heddle, John

    Trippier, David

    Hind, Kenneth

    Trotter, Neville

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

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Howells, Geraint

    Wallace, James

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Waller, Gary

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Irvine, Michael

    Watts, John

    Jack, Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Kennedy, Charles

    Wilshire, David

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Wood, Timothy

    Knapman, Roger

    Knowles, Michael

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Mr. Tom Sackville and

    Lightbown, David

    Mr. Michael Fallon.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 21

    ORDERS
    Amendment made:
    No. 3, in line 26 after 'applies,' insert—
    '(aa) an order under section 19,'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

  Clause 23

    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Amendment made:
    No. 5, in line 14 at end insert—
    '(bb) section 19,'.—[Mr. Fowler.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    4.26 am
    Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill removes unnecessary restrictions and, in so doing, widens the employment opportunities for women and young people. It also contributes to a new national framework for training. It simplifies the regulation of business and strikes a fairer balance between employers and their employees. At the same time, it takes away no vital safeguards from anyone.
    It is not a revolution in employment law, but an important and constructive measure which should enjoy the support of the House.
    4.29 am
    Ms. Jo Richardson: Nearly five months ago, along with many other hon. Members, I sat on these Benches for the Second Reading of the Bill and heard speech after speech from Conservative Members the like of which I had never heard in the House before. All of a sudden, the Government wanted to improve the lot of women: after years of eroding women's rights and opportunities, they had apparently seen the light. The more cynical of the commentators observed that the Secretary of State's personal road to Damascus had to do less with ending discrimination than with the realisation that the votes of women would determine the result of the next general election—and I hope they will.
    I was prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. After all, the Bill was going to allow women to clean dangerous machinery and to go down the mines: what more could any self-respecting woman want? Then I thought, "Wait a moment. What about a universal maternity grant?" The Government abolished that. "What about maternity leave as of right?" The Government are the only Government in western Europe to refuse us such provisions, all of which are connected with employment. "What about improved child care facilities, which are crucial to women who are working?" We have the least publicly funded child care facilities in Europe. "What about parental leave?" Time after time, the Government disgracefully block the European draft directive. "What about equal pension and retirement ages?" We debated that specifically, but the Government say that the position is far too complicated at present.
    I looked through the Bill in vain for a major contribution to reducing sex discrimination at work. There was a long-overdue repeal of section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act, but only in relation to employment and training. There was nothing to counter, for example, sexual harassment at work, which is a major obstacle to women remaining in some jobs; nothing to end low pay, a phenomenon that affects women disproportionately; nothing to recognise the contribution to the economy of part-timers, most of whom are women. In the last sitting on Report we moved a new clause that would have given part-time workers full employment rights, but the

    189
    Government showed what they really thought of women workers, particularly part-time women workers, by denying them a set of basic rights that are available almost everywhere else in the European Community.
    If truth be told, most of the gestures towards women in the Bill have been forced on the Government by Europe. They do not, however, begin to make a start on the fundamental discrimination, which is very deep-seated; instead they have been used callously by the Government as a mask to hide the real aims of the Bill. Having exhausted their attacks on trade unions, the Government have turned their attention back to employees and afresh to unpaid union officials. The removal of the rights to written disciplinary procedures and reasons for dismissal of many employees are unnecessary and bad enough; the removal of the status of civil servants from people working in the Skills Training Agency is a disgrace. Many such employees are following a Civil Service career.
    I was impressed—I thought about it carefully only a few minutes ago—when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said that many people were proud to be civil servants. That is indeed the case, but overnight, without the option of a transfer elsewhere in the Civil Service, they are no longer to be public servants.
    The loss of rights in the Bill, and in much of the legislation of the past decade, is now accompanied by a reduction in the ability to seek redress when the remaining rights are infringed. Lay officials—shop stewards—are to be limited in the paid time off they are allowed for trade union activities. We had a debate about that tonight. It is clearly intended to limit the amount and quality of advice that such officials are able to offer fellow workers. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, shop stewards often assist employees who take cases before an industrial tribunal.
    The Bill will allow the chairs of tribunals to charge an applicant £150 if he wishes to proceed with a case. But the most disturbing of all the clauses is that which "allows" young people to work unrestricted hours in factories and shops. That clause is a disgrace. Young people aged between 16 and 18 will, when asked, be required to work more than nine hours per day, more than 48 hours a week—and many will have to start work before seven in the morning and finish after eight at night. They will have no right to refuse to work those hours.
    Statistics show that the younger one is the more likely one is to have an accident. YTS accident rates have doubled over the past three years. Young people need special protection. The Opposition realise that, and so does Europe. However, the Government respond by introducing a Bill that contravenes the European social charter. Earlier, the Government rejected new clauses that would have helped the disabled. What a disgrace that they should have been turned down. They would at least have made the Bill worth while.
    The Bill represents a missed opportunity. There can be no doubt that the number of young people coming on to the labour market will fall by almost one quarter by the early 1990s. Something must be done, but the answer is surely not deregulation—which Conservative Members cling to like a sinking ship. It will not solve anything. I wish we could persuade the Government to face up to the crying need for a proper training programme, adequately funded and supervised, and offering real jobs at the end of it.
    The unemployed need training and retraining, but so do other workers and women returning to the labour market after taking care of their children or of their elderly or
    190
    disabled relatives. Such are the initiatives that will provide the answers in a changing labour market and to discrimination against women, which is still rife. The so-called Employment Bill does nothing to provide any answers, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against its Third Reading.
    4.37 am
    Mr. Wallace: When the Bill received its Second Reading, my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled a reasoned amendment, which was voted on, which stated that, while we welcomed certain parts of the Bill—specifically those extending equal opportunities to women—we expressed regret that the Bill failed to provide adequate protection for young people and diminished many employees' rights.
    We hoped that a number of the Bill's provisions could be amended during its Committee and Report stages, but it has been clear throughout that the Government were unwilling to accept even the most reasonable of the Opposition's amendments and insist instead on the Bill being as they want it, without making any concessions.
    I commend the first part of the Bill in respect of equality for women. I do not envisage that it will mean a return to sending women down coal mines, as has sometimes been graphically suggested by those most opposed to that. part of the Bill. It is more likely to permit women pursuing engineering courses and who are currently unable to take up employment in mining to do so. That will open up opportunities for women that do not currently exist.
    As the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) indicated, the Bill's most sinister provision is that relating to the employment of young people. While we accept that there is a large volume of anomalous legislation, and do not quibble about it being removed from the statute book, the risk is that doing so will put the baby out with the bath water. It appears that many forms of protection that have existed for many years, with good reason, will also be removed. Not only Opposition Members have expressed concern; throughout our debates quotations from bodies such as the CBI have suggested that the Bill could lead to the exploitation of young people by unscrupulous employers.
    In passing the Bill, we have to disassociate ourselves from at least one important part of the European social charter. I find it difficult to accept that such legislation can be advanced in the name of progress when we are taking a step back from our international obligations.
    The Bill restricts the rights of individual employees in a number of important ways—with regard to disciplinary procedures, time off for trade union duties and the period of employment necessary to qualify for a statement of reasons for dismissal. As we have debated at some length, there is the opportunity for employers to insist on pre-hearing reviews and the necessity for employees wanting to pursue a case to have to put down a deposit. In a number of cases the Government have argued that the Bill is taking down barriers and relieving the burden on small businesses.
    However, as it did before Second Reading, the British Institute of Management has written to many Members of Parliament as it looked forward to Report and Third Reading, specifically about the extension of the qualifying period for a written statement of reasons for dismissal. It

    191
    accepts that that brings the period into line with the qualifying period for a claim of unfair dismissal. However, it states:
    "we do not see this as a comprehensive argument in its favour. 78 per cent. of BIM members, when questioned in October last year, stated that the current level of employment protection was 'about right'. Only 11 per cent. thought there was 'too much'.
    That gives the lie to the Government's contention that in some way the Bill will lift the burden on small businesses. It appears that a large number of businesses think that the balance is about right.
    The Bill does not stem from any real desire to lift burdens but is a manifestation of an attitude that pervades the Government, who consider industry to be a battlefield between employers and employees in a constant battle as to which side should get the upper hand. Quite clearly, they are taking the opportunity to give the upper hand to employers. The Bill is a rejection of any idea of a social dimension to 1992 and greater European unity. Many of our continental counterparts see industry as more of a partnership. The Government totally repudiate that view, and the Bill is a manifestation of their attitude.
    As I said earlier in regard to equal rights for women employees, we commend some of the Bill's provisions, but its balance is such that, not least because the Government have been extremely unwilling to accept any amendments to it, have struck with what they want to put on the statute book and have been deaf to even reasoned argument, we shall oppose the Bill on Third Reading.
    4.43 am
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Bill is mean and nasty and therefore is a good reflection of the Conservative party and is very worthy of the Government. It is mean and nasty because it takes away even quite small rights from employees while making sanctimonious statements about extending freedom. A Government who bother to remove the right to written reasons for dismissal and to written descriptions of disciplinary proceedings are a mean Government. A Government that remove protection from young people, which may lead to them working nights and for unlimited hours, are a nasty Government. The Government have done that in the name of extending opportunities for young people, which is disgraceful.
    The Government have said that the Bill extends employment opportunities for young people and that it will increase the number of jobs available to them. When challenged to say how that would happen, as the Bill only removes protection and makes it possible to employ young people in conditions in which they should never be employed, the Government said, "The Bill will not create jobs offering unlimited hours, constant nights or fancy shifts." If that is so, why does the Bill make provision for such conditions? The Government cannot say that opening the door to unlimited hours or shift work so as to provide more opportunities for young people to work will not have that effect and yet produce more jobs. That is a completely untenable argument.
    I hope that the Bill will have no effect, but if it does it will be no thanks to the Government—it will be despite them. They sought to extend not the rights of any worker or any good employer but simply the rights and freedoms of the worst employers to compete in the worst possible
    192
    way. The Bill is bad not only for working people but for good employers. I was astonished by how often in Committee I argued the case of the good employer. I felt justified in doing so because any decent employer will look with dismay at the freedom given to his competitors to compete at the lowest possible levels of personnel management.
    The Government have said that the Bill extends opportunities for women. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is right in saying that the Bill will extend opportunities for genuine careers for women, but I doubt it. I do not know whether it will result in women going down pits, but if it does not, it will simply be because employment in the mining industry is contracting. It is an expression of a peculiar sense of humour to extend to a new group of people who have not asked for such an extension the right to work down a mine when employment of people who want to work in mines is being forcibly reduced.
    The Bill shows that the Government do not care about working people, or about the sensible procedures of the House. The Government have not made any concessions and they have not felt it necessary to produce reasoned arguments. Their arguments in Committee at times bordered on the bizarre. They have not been embarrassed when they have been caught out with the absence of facts.
    We have been discussing young people, and I want to refer once again to the fact that the Bill changes the definition of young people. The glorious freedom to work nights will now begin when youngsters are aged 15 years eight months.
    When I asked in Committee how many under-16-yearolds would be affected by the Bill, the Government did not know. They did not even care. Yet I discovered from the Department of Education and Science, the colleagues of the Ministers on the Government Front Bench now, that it will affect more than 100,000 young people under 16. A Government who are as careless of information and fact, who do so little preparation and who, at the same time, bleat on perpetually about extending freedom are a Government worthy of nothing but contempt, as is the Bill.
    4.49 am
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The Government were pushed into the first six clauses by the directive of the Council of the European Community. However, they were pushed into them rather slowly because the directive was dated 2 February 1976 and they produced them in a minimal fashion, as was illustrated by the Opposition's amendments on which we were defeated in Committee.
    Those amendments sought to reduce the under-representation of women by arguing for positive discrimination and for consultation on and reviewing of legislation with the Equal Opportunities Commission, which was not allowed in some areas, and to improve compliance with the statutory provisions that we were at that time enacting, and extending the provisions to religious orders, among others. None of those moves were accepted. No member of the Committee broke ranks on any amendment put forward by the Opposition.
    Our one success on the first six clauses seemed to be a modest amendment to have the Equal Opportunities Commission consulted when new minimal improvements to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 could be overridden.

    193
    that appears in clause 6 which deals with the Secretary of State's power to exempt particular acts of discrimination required under statute. The argument was that certain legislation might emerge that it did not know about and it might need the action in some circumstances to evade what it was doing in a limited way within the other five areas.
    I moved that amendment in Committee, and when the Minister promised to bring a reworded version forward on Report I begged leave to withdraw the amendment. That was done, but I have not seen that promise fulfilled. That promise can be found in the Committee Hansard for 31 January at columns 90 to 94. If we are not getting that now, will it be promised in another place?
    After the first six clauses in response to the EC directive on sex discrimination, the Government thought that it would be a clever wheeze to present clause 7 which seeks to push women into working in the pits. The one great danger is that women who register as unemployed may be directed towards jobs in the pits, and, if they refuse them, will be deemed not to be actively seeking work and thus lose benefit.
    That wheeze sought only to embarrass the Opposition. It was the Opposition who believed in equal opportunity. The Government were having only a mild version forced upon them and were going as reluctantly as possible towards it. They thought that it would be a good debating point—a good turning of tables—to confront the Opposition with a crude version of equality in the pits. I can see no other reason for their seeking to do that.
    The Opposition took up the challenge, accepting the principle, given positive improvements for men and women in the pits, particularly ergonomic, health and safety, toilet and lavatory facilities improvements. Neither the Government nor any Conservative Members gave any support to any of those suggestions in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
    We reject the idea of putting women in crude and primative conditions. Even men should not be working in such conditions, but the men who work in them in the mines do not want their daughters and wives to work in such conditions. That view should be respected by all. It is certainly respected by daughters and wives in mining communities.
    With the "women in the pits" debate we confronted the whole issue of major burdens being placed on working people by the Bill. Reference has been made to the protection that used to be afforded to youngsters between 16 and 18; 75 per cent. of them have been protected in such matters as hours of work, numbers of days to be worked and meal breaks. Those protections are going. How can human beings do that to young people?
    Those who are prepared to do it may be ignorant about conditions in the pits, but they must meet youngsters and talk to them about their feelings. Were they not once young themselves? Were they all workaholic whizz kids who were unconcerned about what was going on around them? They may indeed have been like that, for they have no understanding of what life is really like. Youngsters should have better things to do than be forced by legislation of this type to do nothing but work.
    In Committee and on Report we attempted to protect the disabled, allowing them job opportunities and hindering dismissals. It has become clear that there is not an ounce of compassion among Conservative Members for women, for the young or for the disabled. Trade unionists are again taking a bashing over time off for
    194
    union activities. The only move on that front in Committee came from Tory Members who wish to foist on trade unions still greater burdens and to bash the last remnants that remain of closed shop activities.
    The Bill contains other anti-social matters, including the removal of the right of many people to dismissal notices, and there has been a lack of response to the reasonable concern voiced by many people about the functions and duties of industrial tribunals. Rather than develop those matters, I shall conclude by mentioning a matter that we have not debated, partly because until tonight we have been too polite an Opposition. We have allowed the Bill to progress under protest only, being anxious to debate the measure without the threat of the guillotine.
    The subject to which I refer is Northern Ireland. Clause 20 applies the entire measure to Northern Ireland by Order in Council, mainly under the negative resolution procedure. If the writ of the Bill should not extend to an area, that area must be Northern Ireland. The House has just passed fair employment legislation applying to Northern Ireland. It received all-party support and was opposed only by diehard Ulster Unionists.
    How can there be fair employment when the young are exploited, when the disabled are dismissed as of no concern and when trade unionists are hounded? The way to help Northern Ireland is the way to help the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is by rejecting disgraceful Bills such as this.
    4.58 am
    Mr. Nellist: If the economy was really going forward, the Bill would be unnecessary. If we were in the seventh—or is it the eighth?—successive year of economic growth, as the Chancellor keeps on assuring us, the Bill would not be required. If we were witnessing genuine falls in unemployment rather than a largely statistical manipulation of the figures, and if we were having a rise in the number of well-paid jobs, the Bill would be superfluous.
    The boom that was engineered, particularly in the 18 months before the 1987 general election, is fragile and its time is almost up. Hence this legislation. Investment is low, productivity and production are virtually static and trade has nose-dived. Yet the Government continue with their 10-year strategy of preparing the legislative framework to ensure that when the fragile boom is seen not to be present they will have the necessary bits of paper in place to restrict trade unions as organisations and workers as individuals from opposing reductions in living standards and working conditions. This is the sixth major attack in 10 years continuing that pattern.
    As colleagues have said, not only on Report but in the many hours in Committee, this Bill removes individual workers' rights gained primarily during the 30 years following the second world war. What was given by employers and industrialists and the Tory party of those days with the left hand is now being savagely snatched back with the right. It is the cynical disregard of workers' interests in the interests of profit that is the prime function of this Government and of the party that introduced the Bill. It is not about creating jobs or improving conditions but about increasing exploitation and removing rights from individual employees.
    The first section of the Bill—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr.

    195
    Barnes) has just spoken—comes under the guise of a gesture towards sex equality. However, it is not equalising upwards and improving all protective legislation for men and women, but equalising downwards from the existing protective legislation on the statute book. It achieves equality, not by increasing protection for men but by reducing it for women, particularly in such things as the cleaning of machinery with dangerous moving parts. That shows the interest of this Government. They are not for equality; they are for reducing to the lowest common denominator wherever they can get away with it.
    Clause 7 is about repealing the ban on women working underground. I do not intend to repeat the arguments in Committee, when I spoke for an hour and a quarter on that clause alone. I made a promise in Committee because, like most if not all the members, I spoke on the basis of second-hand knowledge, of conversations with miners and their families, without direct personal knowledge of a working pit, although I have been down a couple of redundant slate mines. I promised to spend a day in a working pit before we reached Report and I did that as a guest of the management and trade unionists of the Keresley colliery outside Coventry at the beginning of May. That reinforced in my mind the points I made in Committee about the conditions of work for miners in British pits and the inherent danger not only of dust, chemicals and heat but of the roadways. I travelled along hundreds of metres of roadways that were less than 3½ to 4 ft high. It confirmed all the points that we had made.
    What we wanted from the debate on that part of the Bill were ways of improving the existing working conditions of miners, not of introducing more workers into those inadequate conditions. But all the way through the stages of this Bill the Tory party has rejected any amendment to improve working conditions in regard to health and safety, sanitation, heat, dust, chemicals or redesigning of machinery or protective equipment.
    Clause 7 was essentially a blue herring. It was designed to divert attention from the way in which the Bill was reducing working conditions for women and youth in particular.
    The Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), said a few moments ago that it will open opportunities for women. From March 1984 to March 1988 the number of pits in this country was reduced from 170 to 94 and over 90,000 jobs disappeared from the pits.
    We are not here as legislators to discuss abstract rights, to discuss things like academics in ivory towers; we are here to discuss practical legislation in the real world. What was needed, and what was totally absent from this Bill, was movement towards increasing genuine opportunities for the employment of women, particularly working-class women, which would have needed such things as workplace nurseries and ending the tax on them, and improved maternity leave and maternity grants. The amendments and points that we put in Committee in that direction were decisively and unanimously rejected by the Government.
    The other major area of the Bill is the sweeping away of current restrictions on the employment of young people, especially in terms of the number of hours a week that they can work. Those provisions are about increasing the exploitation of young people who, as my hon. Friend the
    196
    Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has repeatedly said, may be as young as 15 years 8 months old. I make the same point today as I made three times during the passage of the Bill. There is not a single Tory Member who would raise his hand and tell us that he would put a daughter or a son of his at 15 years 8 months old into a bakery on nights and working more than 54 hours a week. Yet that is precisely what they are asking the working-class youth of this country to work when, or if, the Bill becomes law.
    All through the discussions, we have been told that these matters could safely be left to market forces and negotiation. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) made the point in a stage whisper in Committee. He said that the only promise we were getting from the Tory party on young people's hours of work was that no young person would be forced to work more than 24 hours in any single day.
    The Government are doing nothing to improve the conditions of young people. They have swept away the wages councils for the under-21s, they have abolished benefits for 16 to 17-year-olds to conscript them on to the youth training scheme and now they are grafting on this deterioration in hours and working conditions for those youngsters who are in jobs. We spelled out the inevitable consequence during the passage of the Bill. There will be an increase in the number of accidents among young people.
    As Nye Bevan used to say, one does not have to look in the crystal ball when one can read the book. Any analysis, especially since the expansion of the youth training scheme, which considers young people at work, especially in non-unionised and unsupervised areas, shows a doubling of accidents. The trend will continue at the end of long shifts for younger people of 15 years 8 months. Responsibility for the blood from the increase in accidents, the amputations and possible fatalities will rest squarely on the Treasury Bench of the House of Commons, which introduced and pushed the Bill through.
    The Government see young people as cheap labour. Okay—at 5.5 am, with perhaps a couple of dozen of us voting against the Bill, it will receive a Third Reading. However, we will take the only responsibility left open to us, not only as politicians, but as active trade unionists. We will take the campaign out of this Chamber, once the Bill is passed, back into the trade union movement, and we will insist that our trade union organisations actively recruit young people, as they have done in the past, but in recent years have perhaps not done sufficiently well. To paraphrase the old black and white television advertisements of the 1950s, we will get the strength not of the insurance companies, but of the trade union movement, around those young people. The collective protection of the trade unions is the only barrier to the increase in accidents upon which we can build.
    The Bill also weakens individual workers' rights on redundancy, time off for trade union duties and access to industrial tribunals unless people can afford a £150 deposit. It may not be exactly a tax on justice, but there is no other phrase for it.
    The Bill also dissolves the Training Commission. That is part of the Government's strategy to weaken the ability of workers to defend themselves and to have free, democratic and effective collective representation through the trade union movement.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston also said, the Bill is vicious and mean. It is an anti-working class

    197
    measure. If—or, more likely, when—it receives its Third Reading in a few moments, we, as Labour Members, will have to take the fight out of this Chamber into the real world and to the working-class movement of Britain. We must seek to encourage working people to reimpose on employers by negotiation, organisation, and, where necessary, industrial action the rights that have been legislated away by the Tory party.
    The Bill will be passed, but if Tory Members, especially those with close connections with business, think that that is the end of the matter and that once the proposals are down on a piece of paper, workers' rights will be removed and the door will be open to the increased exploitation of young people and women workers in particular, they should not hold their breath. The time is not far away when rights will be reimposed—the right to a decent job, to decent pay and to a safe working environment, for which the Tory party and the Government care naught.
    5.10 am
    Mr. Cryer: Trade unionists in the textile industry have co-operated in shift working, in changes in working practices and in the introduction of new machinery. They have not received the gratitude of the Government or the employers. They have been kicked in the teeth. Since 1979, 150,000 to 200,000 jobs in the textile and clothing industries have disappeared. The notion that by introducing yet more flexible working and removing protection for women and young people the Government will somehow generate a boom in the manufacturing or service industries is, quite simply, an illusion. The Bill is intended to enable the Government to pass on to employers means of attacking ordinary working men and women yet again—and particularly women.
    Under recent social security legislation, people must be able to demonstrate that they are actively seeking work. In addition, the power now exists to require women to take night work. In the same legislative process the Government are arranging for the passage of a private Bill—the British Rail (Penalty Fares) Bill. With the help of the organisation of the Chief Whip to secure the Tory vote, British Rail seeks means of destaffing stations and installing more ticket machines. The self-same women who are forced to take night work under threat of penalties against them will not find public transport staffed by people who can help them in any dilemma that they may face in this increasingly violent Tory society; they will be exposed increasingly to the violence that surrounds them. They will be placed in that position by .a network of legislation that is oppressing them, of which the Bill is an example. On cold winter mornings, when they hear footfalls on the path behind them as they go to the station—Tory legislation has meant that bus services have been sadly diminished—and look for friendly help, it will not be there.
    Responsibility will rest squarely with the Tory legislators as they sit there in their smug somnolence tonight, making funny little remarks about the circumstances, in their jokey, contemptuous, hard-hearted and vicious manner. I note that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), for example, finds the whole thing terribly amusing. No doubt the women in Bromsgrove will be pleased to hear that their Member of Parliament finds the predicament in which the legislation will place women in general overwhelmingly amusing.
    198
    Clause 10 robs trade unionists of the right to participate in conferences and to attend meetings that are relevant to their jobs and their industry. In future, such participation will depend on collective agreements argued out in each factory, rather than on a national arrangement under which every employee throughout the country knows and understands his position. That is a recipe for industrial unrest; it is being pushed through by the Government as a further attack on trade unionists and trade unions.
    The Bill contains some shoddy little measures. Clause 11, for example, provides that one must work for two years continuously before an employer is required to put in writing the reasons why one is facing the trauma of dismissal. It is a shoddy bit of vindictive pettiness towards working people to remove a burden from employers by telling them that they need not write down their reasons. The Government have produced no evidence that the removal of a simple obligation to set out the reasons for the exercise of an employer's enormous power—for the person facing dismissal, almost an awe-inspiring power—would result in the diminution of employment in small businesses or in the output of manufacturing industry.
    The Government intend to impose a tax on justice, despite the fact that, once again, they have produced no evidence to show that resort to an industrial tribunal is made flippantly, vexatiously or frivolously or that it is not a genuine attempt to seek justice. If that is the case—and the Government have produced no evidence to prove that it is not—it is an unfair and onerous penalty that people should be asked to pay a £150 deposit for a pre-hearing review. Millions of people struggle from week to week to find the money to pay their bills. It is outrageous to ask them to produce £150 on top of their many outgoings and, for many people, it will be an effective bar to access to justice.
    I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) about the provision that will allow women to work in coal mines. It is a removal of the protection for women and young people. To translate working in the most harrowing and awful conditions in pits as some sort of gain is to treat women with contempt and disdain. At the next general election we shall make much of this legislation and demonstrate to women that the Tory party has betrayed them.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 20.

    Division No. 229]

    [5.16 am

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Amos, Alan

    Durant, Tony

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fallon, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Favell, Tony

    Ashby, David

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Baldry, Tony

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forth, Eric

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Freeman, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    French, Douglas

    Bottomley, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Brazier, Julian

    Gill, Christopher

    Bright, Graham

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gregory, Conal

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hague, William

    Devlin, Tim

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    199

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Norris, Steve

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Harris, David

    Paice, James

    Heddle, John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hind, Kenneth

    Raffan, Keith

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

    Redwood, John

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Ryder, Richard

    Irvine, Michael

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Shersby, Michael

    Knapman, Roger

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Knowles, Michael

    Speller, Tony

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Lightbown, David

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Lilley, Peter

    Summerson, Hugo

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Thurnham, Peter

    Maclean, David

    Trippier, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Trotter, Neville

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Waller, Gary

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Watts, John

    Mills, Iain

    Wells, Bowen

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Wilshire, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wood, Timothy

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Neubert, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Mr. Tom Sackville and

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Richardson, Jo

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cryer, Bob

    Strang, Gavin

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Wallace, James

    Dixon, Don

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Foster, Derek

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Howells, Geraint

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    McCartney, Ian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Meale, Alan

    Mr. Allen McKay and

    Nellist, Dave

    Mr. Frank Haynes.

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

Rights of the Child (UN Convention)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
5.27 am
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Even at this late hour I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns about the proposed United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I apologise to the Minister for any inconvenience caused to him by being here at this late hour. I welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
The recent events in China have filled us all with sadness, horror and anger, because the most basic of all human rights—the right to life itself—has been taken away from more than 7,000 young people. Our sadness, our horror and our anger are justified. No one has the right to destroy innocent human life in that way.
Those of us in the pro-life movement, who believe that life begins at conception, feel the same sadness, horror and anger about the 170,000 children in this country who are killed by abortion every year. Their lives are sacred and should not be forfeited because they are inconvenient to their parents, any more than the lives of the Chinese students should have been forfeited because they were inconvenient to the state.
The right to life is paramount and must be recognised as such from the moment that new life begins, at conception. That right embraces the entire process of human growth and development. The constantly increasing numbers of abortions and the growing social and legal acceptance of terminating the lives of handicapped children show that the child needs special protection before as well as after birth. I am concerned that the proposed United Nations convention on the rights of the child will not fully recognise the right to life.
The proposed convention is meant to update and upgrade the 1959 United Nations declaration on the rights of the child, but, unlike the declaration, the convention will have the force of law. Its purpose is to enumerate the rights of children and to secure a commitment from states that they will endeavour to bring their laws and practices into conformity with those rights. The 1959 declaration made two references to the child before birth. The preamble stated:
"Whereas the child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth."
Principle 4 of the declaration said:
"Special care and protection shall be provided both to him and his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care".
The proposed convention, drafted by a working group of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, which had been working on the text for some 10 years, made no mention of the unborn child. Attempts specifically to protect the unborn child in the convention were made in 1980, but opposition from some countries with liberal abortion laws prevented the inclusion of any reference to the child before birth.
Article I of the draft now contains the following definition of a child:
"For the purpose of the present convention a child means every human being below the age of 18 years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".

201
There is no reference to the point at which childhood begins. This ambiguity on the beginning of childhood was clearly approved by the working group to allow states with differing laws governing the rights of the child before birth to interpret article 1 in different ways. The great opportunity to challenge states to improve the legal protection offered to the child before birth by using objective criteria to identify the point of commencement of childhood was not utilised.
Following international protests about the failure of the convention to protect the child before birth, last November's meeting of the working group reopened the issue. On 29 November, a reference to the child before birth was inserted in the preamble to the draft. It now reads:
"Bearing in mind that as indicated in the declaration of the rights of the child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1959, the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth."
That is the only reference to the child before birth in the convention and even that was inserted only in exchange for the states which wanted such protection for unborn children agreeing to a comment being added as follows:
"In adopting this preambular paragraph the working group does not intend to prejudice the interpretation of article 1 or any other provision of the convention by state parties".
It is clear that the interpretation of the word "child" leaves the way wide open for countries where abortion is legalised to interpret the convention as excluding the child before birth. Their adoption of the convention will not therefore be inhibited by the fear that by doing so they will have to amend existing abortion laws.
It is unfortunate that, solely because of their abortion laws, the majority of the delegates of the working group should have decided to omit the important words "from the moment of conception" from article 1. The great increase in medical knowledge about the nature and development of the child before birth in the 13 years since the declaration would, in the ordinary course of events, have made it natural to stress the importance of medical care for children before birth. All countries now recognise the importance of that and make provision for it in their medical services.
It is disgraceful that, in 1989, because, for the purpose of abortion laws, children are treated as chattels rather than people, an important convention on the needs and rights of children should deliberately exclude mention of their needs and rights before birth. Due to the present abortion laws, the convention was unable to deal with the specific duties and responsibilities of parents towards their children before birth.
The effect on children of the behaviour of their parents during the nine months of development in the womb is increasingly recognised in medical circles. It would have been of benefit to all human beings if that had been explicitly recognised in the convention.
The new convention should contain within its preamble a statement on the need to provide legal protection before, as well as after, birth. It should reaffirm the principles, contained in the current declaration, that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration in the enactment of laws. It should reaffirm the principle that a child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped should he given the special treatment, education and care required by his or her condition.
202
I welcome the Government's commitment to the family and the importance of family life. However, such commitment will not ring true with the general public unless the Government are seen to be doing everything in their power to protect the weakest and most vulnerable member of that family: the unborn child. Therefore, I hope that the Government will seek to ensure that the text eventually agreed for the proposed convention will recognise that a human child is human, both before and after birth, and that human rights—rights which attach to a being by virtue of being human—will attach to a child before and after birth.
Unless that clarification to the proposed convention is made, the impression will be given that the United Nation's commission regards some humans as not being entitled to human rights, and that the commission may decide which humans are so entitled, and which are not. Such an attitude would discredit the commission, the convention and the Government if they were seen to support it.
5.38 am
Mr. David Alton: That hon. Members on both sides of the House have stayed throughout the night and are here at just after half-past 5 in the morning to debate this important issue demonstrates that neither the issue nor the Members who are concerned about it will go away, and that it is a matter that the Government must face. I and I am sure many millions in this country are grateful to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) for having used his Adjournment debate to raise this important matter. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health for having persevered through the night to be here to answer the important points which have been made this morning. I wish to underline those points in my brief contribution, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hyndburn for allowing me to intervene.
Going back, not just to 1959 but to 1948, to the immediate aftermath of the second world war, when we had experienced such massive atrocities on a scale never before experienced by humankind, the United Nations passed a declaration which asserted unequivocally and unambiguously that everyone had the right to life. Over the intervening 40 years that commitment has been watered down, eroded and evaporated as successive Governments in different parts of Europe have become more and more edgy about providing a substantive assurance on the right to life.
During the past 20 years in this country we have allowed 3 million abortions of unborn children. I do not believe that anyone who was in this Chamber in 1967 when the original legislation was passed ever believed that the taking of life would occur on such a massive scale. There are 174,000 abortions annually and about 600 abortions every working day. That is the heedless plunder of our creation and it is not only happening here. In the United States of America, there are about 1·5 million abortions annually, and in China, to which the hon. Member for Hyndburn referred, there were 5 million abortions last year.
In my view, abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse. We should not be surprised that so many terrible things happen to the child on this side of birth when we allow the destruction of the child before it can be born.

203
When we consider some of what takes place in this country's private clinics and hospitals, it seems that we have turned them into charnel houses. Abortions can take place legally as late as 28 weeks into gestation. The fact that a child that is perfectly viable, or even a child without viability that is clearly human, can be destroyed by being torn apart piece by piece demonstrates that our claims to call ourselves civilised are not justified.
This is happening on an horrific scale, but it has been politely placed out of sight and out of mind. The Minister should not underestimate the potency of the issue. Britain took a lead, some 150 years ago, in ending the international trade in slaves, and the United States quickly followed our example. If today we take the first steps back from this ugly trade in abortionism—if we turn the tide, take the fight to the United Nations and reassert the statements made in 1948 in the UN declaration of human rights that everyone has the right to life, and the 1959 declaration that life begins at conception—I believe that we will be performing a major service to mankind.
This question is far too important to be left to obscure debates held in private Members' time, and be relegated to "conscience questions", which is shorthand for preserving the status quo. The pro-life amendment to the United Nations convention would be a first step towards restoring a rational sense of balance to the debate and away from the status quo. It would recognise that no one has the right to end the life of another. To say that it is our right to choose to take another person's life is a spurious assertion: it is never our right to make that choice. It is merely the ultimate refuge of a selfish society.
The House will wish to thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn for initiating this debate, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
5.41 am
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Let me also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on securing this important debate, and thank the Minister for having lasted through the night. If if falls to his lot to reply to my Adjournment debate on Thursday, I hope that it will be at a slightly more congenial hour.
The fact that two Adjournment debates this week deal with the subject of abortion demonstrates the level of parliamentary concern and, indeed, determination that the issue will not go away and must be resolved. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn made the point that there was no proper definition in the United Nations convention of where childhood began, he put his finger on the main weakness of the case for not defining the rights of the child.
If we had defined when childhood began, the case of the Carlisle baby would not have come about. It is popular among our opponents to talk merely about the woman's right to choose, and to refer to "the foetus", never the baby or the unborn child. It is difficult to see that the Carlisle baby, whose case I shall be raising on Thursday, could possibly be described as anything other than a child or a baby. That baby was no different from babies all over the world in incubators, being loved and cherished with all the resources of medical science placed at their disposal. Had there been some definition of where childhood began, it
204
would have been impossible for its case to occur. If we recognise the rights of children before birth, as we do to a limited extent in this country—that is, we recognise their rights at 28 weeks—there is no way that we can ignore so comprehensively their rights after birth.
There is a second parallel between the Carlisle baby case and the United Nations convention. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn rightly pointed out that, by its refusal to define where childhood begins and to give rights to the unborn child, the convention allows nations to interpret it as widely as they choose. In other words, it condones the cover-up. Instead of doing what most international treaties do—set standards to which everyone must adhere—it says that everyone can do what they like.
The most massive cover-up, which I shall be speaking about on Thursday, occurred at Carlisle general hospital in the summer of 1987, when the mother concerned was not even told that her child of six months had lived; the priest who brought the matter to public attention had his contract terminated or at any rate not renewed; a request for a coroner's inquest, which is usually a formality, was turned down; and a live child was not registered at birth. That is the kind of situation that could arise from the United Nations convention—and I see you, Madam Deputy Speaker, rising to tell me that my remarks are too wide of the debate.
Once we say that there is no need to define the rights of the unborn child and that nations can do what they like, we are saying that the born child also has restricted rights and that politicians, doctors and coroners should be left to interpret the law as it stands instead of setting objective standards and punishing very severely those who transgress them.
5.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) graciously apologised for any inconvenience caused to me by participating in the debate at a quarter to 6 in the morning. There is absolutely no inconvenience to myself, but it would be fair and courteous to apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the servants of the House, for keeping you up so late.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) rightly said that abortion is an important national issue. I believe that it is worth debating at 5.30 in the morning just as much as at 5.30 in the afternoon. I have no doubt that we shall be returning to these important issues many times, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdicombe) gave me a trailer of the debate on Thursday, in which I shall certainly participate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn on choosing such an important topic for his Adjournment debate. He drew attention both to important United Nations negotiations now under way and, more specifically, to the sensitive issues of abortion and embryo research on which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have sincere and deeply held views. Although a Minister serves to express the Government's view in the hope of enlightening the House as to the facts of the case in question, we all of us—myself included—have deeply held views on abortion and embryo research, and we shall express them at the appropriate time.

205
I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks in the context of the draft United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It may be helpful if I say a few words about the convention, which was prepared by a working group established by the United Nations commission on human rights in 1979. The United Kingdom was a member of that working group and played a leading role in the drafting of the convention. As a member of the working group, the Government always sought to ensure that the draft reflected our national policies and the principles of the 1959 United Nations declaration on the rights of the child.
The working group has completed its work on the text of the convention, which is now in its final form after almost nine years of detailed discussion. The draft is due to go to the United Nations General Assembly in New York for adoption later this year. It is the Government's intention to sign and ratify the convention soon after its adoption, because, in our view, it is right for this country to be associated with that important statement of international commitment to improving the health and welfare of children throughout the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn rightly drew attention to one or two articles of the convention, but it is an extensive draft covering some 40 articles dealing with children's rights over a very broad range of issues. I am sure that he would wish to lend his support to the convention in that sense.
Once adopted, the convention will be the first international treaty to deal specifically and over a wide field with the human rights and fundamental freedoms of children. The convention will establish minimum standards for the survival, protection and development of children. The Government warmly support the convention's aims.
The working group has been engaged in considerable debate on many of the issues tackled in the draft convention. Among these have been questions about the extent to which it applies to the unborn child. This of course is closely related to the points my hon. Friend has most eloquently drawn attention to this morning. Participating countries have inevitably adopted widely differing positions on this issue. It was the working group's practice to proceed by consensus, and the views of all contributing countries had to be taken into account in drafting this international instrument. That may seem a trite comment, but this is the way in which international treaties and conventions are prepared, as perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone knows.
It is, in the Government's view, esential that the convention should not affect the right of Parliament to decide on appropriate legislation in the fields of abortion and embryo research. In this we are of course at one with many other countries and the issues which are of concern to us must also be exercising their minds. The extent of legislative protection that should be given to human embryos and foetuses is a matter of great debate and difficulty in many countries, not just in the United Kingdom. We must all recognise that on these issues there are deep and sincerely held, but widely differing, views. It is for this reason that in this country Governments have traditionally taken a neutral stance on issues such as abortion and human embryo research, regarding them as matters of individual conscience.
As regards the law on abortion, the House is well aware that our present legislation dates from 1967 when
206
Parliament decided to build on an existing framework of criminal law on this subject. Parliament decided on these arrangements on a free vote. The 1967 Act sets out the circumstances in which termination of pregnancy may legally be performed if statutory arrangements are satisfied. The Abortion Act has to be read alongside the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, whose basic purpose is to protect the life of the unborn child except where termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother. It is open to Parliament to alter some or all aspects of this legislative framework. I know that many hon. Members have strong views on the subject, and the matter has been frequently debated since 1967. It is this complex and controversial position which the Government have to take into account in considering the draft convention.
I am very well aware of the strong and conflicting views hon. Members and others have expressed on the whole issue of abortion. There was a long and valuable debate in the House on 16 December 1988 about the unborn child and my hon. Friend has made good use of the opportunity to draw attention this morning to the issues discussed on that and many other occasions.
The conflict of opinion on abortion applies equally to research involving human embryos. Advances in science and medicine over the past few years have made practicable a whole range of procedures and treatments which could not even have been contemplated previously, but as we all recognise, such scientific advance brings with it problems as well as benefits. In particular, as the Warnock report emphasises, it gives rise to many profound and difficult questions of rights and duties, both ethical and legal on which each of us will have our own view. There is, however, one thing on which I am sure we all agree—the need to provide a clear legislative framework in which future developments can take place.
In our White Paper, "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation", we set out our proposals in this field. Two are particularly relevant to this debate; first, the establishment of a statutory licensing authority to control centres engaged in such procedures as in vitro fertilisation; secondly, to have a free vote on alternative clauses on embryo research in the Bill. One would outlaw it altogether; the other would allow it under strict controls. In that way Parliament will be able to reach a decision on this particularly sensitive issue on the basis of individual conscience.
Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for that important assurance that there will be a vote on embryo experimentation. Is he prepared to give the House an assurance that the same opportunity to vote in Government time on late abortions will also be provided?
Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Lord President and others. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will draw to my right hon. Friend's attention hon. Members' comments in this brief debate. He is in no doubt about the strength of feeling on the issue, and I can do no more than convey to him the feelings of hon. Members who have participated in this debate and their views on the subject. We have made a firm commitment to bring forward legislation on these matters within this Parliament, and I should like to reaffirm that commitment.

207
I am aware that many hon. Members would like to see changes in the abortion law included in the forthcoming legislation. Their arguments will be carefully considered when the legislation is prepared. I am sure that in the debates on the legislation there will be much discussion on the issues ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn.
The central subject of the debate is the draft convention on the rights of the child. It has been helpful to have hon.
208
Members' views and I hope that my reply has shown that in considering the position on the final text of the work on the draft convention the Government are fully seized not only of the importance of the subject as a whole but of the sensitivity which some aspects of it hold for hon. Members. We shall certainly bear these closely in mind in bringing into harmony the convention and the legislation in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Six O'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Attorney-General whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by the Lord Chancellor's Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Such devices are not used by the Lord Chancellor's Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf.

  Legal Reform
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will list the meetings which the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor have had with representatives of the legal profession to discuss the Green Papers; and what further meetings are planned.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers have frequent meetings with representatives of the legal profession at which a variety of topics, which may include the Green Papers, are discussed.

  Liverpool Law Circuit
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Attorney-General what action is being taken to deal with complaints about the Liverpool law circuit; if he will undertake an investigation into procedures on the Liverpool circuit; if he will consider suspending the circuit administrator; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  A number of complaints about delays in the county court at both Birkenhead and Liverpool have been made. The position at Birkenhead has improved over the past few months and a more satisfactory service is now being provided. At Liverpool difficulties have been experienced, due in part to shortages at junior staff levels and extra staffing resources are being made available in order to provide some immediate relief. A thorough appraisal is also being carried out with a view to strengthening the management structure. There is no intention to suspend the circuit administrator.

WALES

  Mid Wales Development Board
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total expenditure of the Mid Wales Development Board in each of the years June 1978 to June 1988 inclusive.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested. I refer the hon.2
  Gentleman to the reply given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 23 February 1987 at columns 8–10 and to the recently published Welsh Office "Commentary on Public Expenditure in Wales 1989–90 to 1991–92" (Table 23), which provides details of the Development Board for Rural Wales' gross expenditure for the financial years 1977–78 onwards.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from general practitioners in Wales about the proposed changes in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  We have received a number of representations from GPs and their representatives. We shall be considering them, along with the views expressed during a series of meetings which we and our senior officials are holding with a wide range of interested bodies, before finalising the proposals.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to ensure that inward investment in Wales is evenly spread between all regions of Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Potential inward investors are encouraged to consider all parts of Wales for their projects. Welsh Development International has regional executives to effect this policy and liaise with local authorities and other bodies to ensure a co-ordinated response to inquiries. In Mid Wales, the co-ordinating role is undertaken by an official of Mid Wales Development who also acts as the area's direct contact point with Welsh Development International. In addition, initiatives have been taken, or are under consideration, for promoting particular areas such as Swansea bay and Gwynedd.

  I am confident that the stronger framework provided by the launch of Welsh Development International will ensure that all of Wales benefits from the inward investment drive, though the choice of location for each project will ultimately always reflect the commercial judgment of the enterprise concerned.

  Airports
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on bringing into operation local airports in(a) Aberystwyth, (b) Anglesey, RAF Valley and (c) RAF Brawdy in order to facilitate quick access to European business centres via Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester and London.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Airport facilities serving south-west and north-west Wales already exist at Haverfordwest (Withybush) and Caernarfon. There is also a helicopter facility at Aberporth. A privately owned airstrip will soon be in operation at Welshpool. Proposals to develop these facilities or open further airports would be matters for the civil aviation industry in the first instance.

  North-South Road
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for constructing a new north-south Wales road before the end of the century.
  3
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My plans for selective improvements to north-south routes in Wales are set out in "Roads in Wales 1989".

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the inflation-adjusted expenditure on different categories of roads in Wales has been for each year between 1975 and 1988.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  Motorways and trunk roads

  Local authority roads

  £'000

  £'000

  1975–76

  146,670

  208,378

  1976–77

  204,977

  241,529

  1977–78

  138,451

  226,250

  1978–79

  128,906

  215,970

  1979–80

  125,938

  192,138

  1980–81

  120,841

  169,451

  1981–82

  150,923

  216,530

  1982–83

  160,826

  227,418

  1983–84

  197,264

  222,545

  1984–85

  138,420

  215,794

  1985–86

  125,646

  219,762

  1986–87

  133,051

  214,577

  1987–88

  145,333

  1230,468

  1988–89

  3153,895

  2195,935

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  3 Does not include EC receipts of £9.0 million.

  Note: All figures at 1988 prices, up-dated using the road construction price index.

  M54
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to extend the M54 to Welshpool or Newtown.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No, but there are substantial improvements in preparation to trunk roads on both sides of the border as indicated in "Roads in Wales 1989" and in "Policy for Roads in England 1987".

  North, Central and South Rail Link
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has made any representations to British Rail about the case for constructing a new railway linking north, central and south Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No.

  Railway Electrification
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make representations to British Rail about the case for electrifying railways from England to(a) Holyhead, (b) Aberystwyth and (c) Pembroke and Fishguard harbour.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This is a matter for British Rail.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now consider reimbursing local authorities with an additional £3 million to meet the cost of introducing the poll tax.
  4
  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend made it clear at the time that the terms of the 1989–90 RSG settlement were fixed, and that remains the position. Under the settlement, the total revenue provision made in 1989–90 for the implementation of the community charge in Wales was £9 million. Local authorities are budgeting to spend £10·9 million. Capital allocations of £10·3 million were given and local authorities are budgeting to spend £9·1 million. These are budget estimates and it is too early to form a judgment on the level of actual expenditure which might be incurred. I have made it clear to local authorities in Wales that overall spending should not exceed the Government's plans.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest available figures for people waiting for urgent in-patient treatment in(a) Wales, (b) Gwent and (c) Newport; and what were the figures in 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information is given in the following table.

  People waiting for urgent in-patient treatment as at 30 September

  19801

  1988

  Wales

  4,240

  2,887

  Gwent

  1,212

  855

  Newport2

  778

  428

  1 Reliable information in this form is not available prior to this date.

  2 People waiting for treatment at royal Gwent and St. Woolos hospitals.

  I welcome the substantial improvement and hope it will continue.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are the latest available figures for non-urgent cases waiting for one month or more in each of the Welsh health authorities; and what were the figures for 1979;

  (2) what are the latest available figures for urgent cases waiting one month or more in each of the Welsh health authorities; and what were the figures for 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information on in-patient waiting lists is given in the following table. Information on non-urgent cases is collected on the basis of the number waiting for one year or more.

  Urgent cases waiting one month or more as at 30 September

  Non-urgent cases waiting one year or more as at 30 September

  19801

  1988

  19801

  1988

  Clwyd

  108

  —

  680

  440

  East Dyfed

  —

  —

  111

  236

  Pembrokeshire

  101

  283

  708

  1,470

  Gwent

  848

  553

  1,958

  2,207

  Gwynedd

  160

  95

  427

  341

  Mid Glamorgan

  417

  250

  3,942

  2,077

  Powys

  9

  3

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  842

  466

  1,666

  1,767

  West Glamorgan

  350

  181

  790

  988

  1 Reliable information in this form is not available prior to this date.

  5
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to reduce the non-urgent hospital waiting lists in Gwent.

  Mr. Grist
  Responsibility for the management of waiting lists in Wales rests with district health authorities, within their allocated financial resources. The recurrent revenue provision for Gwent health authority for 1989–90 is some £127 million which represents a growth of 34 per cent. over 1978–79 after taking account of inflation. In order to reduce waiting times £1 million of additional moneys were allocated to health authorities by the Welsh Office in each of the last three years to enable them to tackle specific problem lists. A further £1.1 million has recently been made available for 1989–90 of which Gwent's share is £220,000 to fund a scheme to reduce trauma and orthopaedics waiting times in south Gwent. In addition, all health authorities have produced action plans for reducing waiting times and officials of the Welsh Office will be kept in touch with the position through six-monthly reports from authorities.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Nerds
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take following the finding of glass in Nerds sweets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Reports reached Government Departments in the afternoon of 23 May. Following discussions and the receipt of more information, the company decided in the interests of consumers to withdraw stocks of the product from sale on the following day.

  Agricultural Development Programmes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural development programmes are operating in(a) the three counties of Yorkshire, and (b) Humberside; where are the locations; what is the total value of grants made to farmers under these schemes; and what is the source of these funds.

  EAGGF Aid for Fishing Vessels 1979–1989

  Year

  Humberside

  Yorkshire

  Vessel Construction

  Vessel Modernisation

  Vessel Construction

  Vessel Modernisation

  Number of Awards

  Amount (£)

  Number of Awards

  Amount (£)

  Number of Awards

  Amount (£)

  Number of Awards

  Amount (£)

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  169,915

  —

  —

  1981

  1

  85,470

  8

  131,880

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  2

  168,014

  5

  103,472

  1

  87,562

  —

  —

  1983

  4

  367,860

  3

  55,199

  3

  54,798

  —

  —

  1984

  3

  291,209

  8

  69,114

  —

  —

  1

  8,874

  1985

  —

  —

  14

  174,763

  —

  —

  6

  55,815

  1986

  6

  1,305,515

  13

  183,968

  1

  105,856

  5

  40,492

  11987

  3

  1,134,316

  2

  8,719

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  4

  65,818

  —

  —

  3

  23,413

  Total

  19

  3,352,384

  57

  792,933

  7

  418,131

  15

  128,594

  1 From 1987 awards are made from Fisheries Budget and not from the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

  The following organisations have received EC awards for projects involving fish processing under the EC processing and marketing regulation 355/77.
  6
  Mr. Ryder
  Agricultural development programmes may be part funded by the Commission of the European Communities under article 18 of Regulation 797/85, the balance of the costs being found from national and local resources. There are none in operation in England and Wales.

  New rules established at the end of 1988 enabled the Commission to designate "rural areas" the development of which need promotion and may be assisted financially under all three of the Community's structural funds. The Commission announced the first list of such areas on 10 May: none were in Yorkshire or Humberside.

  Fishing (Aid)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many grants have been given to members of(a) the Yorkshire, and (b) the Humberside fishing industry under the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund scheme from May 1979 to May 1989; and how many new vessels were built with those grants;

  (2) how much financial aid has been given to the fishing industry in (a) Yorkshire, and (b) Humberside under the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund scheme since May 1979 to date;

  (3) if he will list the projects in the fish processing industry for (a) Yorkshire and (b) Humberside, which received European Community grant aid in the period May 1979 to May 1989 and the total value of grants given to each product;

  (4) in the period May 1979 to May 1989 (a) how many owners of fishing vessels in (i) Yorkshire and (ii) Humberside, received grant aid or the modernisation programme; and what was the total value of these grants, and (b) what was the total value of grand aid give to (i) the Yorkshire, and (ii) the Humberside fishing industry for building of new fishing vessels.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The financial aid available to these regions consists of national and EC grants for fishing vessel construction and modernisation and grants for processing and marketing schemes under EEC regulation 355/77.

  £

  (a) Yorkshire

  1984: Selltop Ltd.

  Scarborough

  25,223

  7

  £

  (b) Humberside

  1979: William Hobson Ltd.

  Grimsby

  31,982

  1981: Cawoods Fishcurers Ltd.

  Hull

  11,329

  1982: L. Williamson (Shetland) Ltd.

  Hull

  38,200

  1982: The Grimsby Exchange Ltd.

  Grimsby

  30,001

  1983: Youngs Seafoods Ltd.

  Grimsby

  215,687

  1984: Marr Frozen Foods Ltd.

  Hull

  18,788

  1985: Marr Frozen Foods Ltd.

  Hull

  10,741

  1985: Seataste (International) Ltd.

  Bridlington

  54,229

  1985: The Grimsby Exchange

  Grimsby

  19,109

  1986: Maconochie Seafoods Ltd.

  Hull

  104,488

  1986: Marr Frozen Foods Ltd.

  Hull

  30,259

  1986: Glenrose (Fish Merchants) Ltd.

  Hull

  47,250

  1986: Schooner Seafoods

  Hull

  44,250

  1986: Bluecrest Foods Ltd.

  Grimsby

  133,017

  1987: Marr Frozen Foods Ltd.

  Hull

  55,745

  Note: Total for Yorkshire and Humberside—16 awards totalling £870,298 (May 1979 to May 1989).

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total value of loans made to(a) the Yorkshire, and (b) the Humberside fishing industry from the Sea Fish Industry Authority in the period May 1979 to May 1989; and how many vessels these loans covered.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is as follows:

  SFIA Loans 1979–1989

  Number of Vessels

  Amount £

  Yorkshire

  12

  597,194

  Humberside

  Nil

  Nil

  Note: SFIA loans ceased to be available after June 1986.

  Farmers (Payments)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the total values of payments made to farmers in(a) the three counties of Yorkshire and (b) Humberside for the sheepmeat regime since 1979; and

  Number of fishing vessels1

  Port

  Under 40 ft

  40–79·9 ft

  80–109·9 ft

  110–139·9 ft

  140 ft +

  Total

  (a) Yorkshire

  21977

  21987

  1977

  1987

  1977

  1987

  1977

  1987

  1977

  1987

  1977

  1987

  Staithes, Port Mulgrove and Runswick Bay

  5

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  22

  Whitby

  15

  53

  22

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  73

  Scarborough

  20

  34

  33

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  53

  61

  Filey

  16

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  25

  Other

  n/a

  10

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  10

  Total

  56

  144

  55

  47

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  111

  191

  (b) Humberside

  Flamborough

  2

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  Bridlington

  13

  26

  35

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  54

  Hull

  —

  1

  11

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  58

  4

  69

  11

  Grimsby

  11

  13

  162

  105

  5

  —

  40

  3

  30

  —

  248

  121

  Other

  n/a

  26

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  26

  Total

  26

  70

  208

  133

  5

  1

  40

  8

  88

  4

  367

  216

  n/a = not available
  8
  how much of this was from (a) the European Community and (b) central Government in the period May 1979 to May 1989.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Farmers in Great Britain have received support since 1980 under the EC sheepmeat regime through both the sheep variable premium and the annual ewe premium. Both schemes are 100 per cent. financed from European Community funds. A breakdown of payments since 1979 is not available in the form requested by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the total values of payments made to farmers in(a) the three counties of Yorkshire and (b) Humberside for the beef premium in the period from May 1979 to May 1989; and how much of this was funded (i) from the European Community and (ii) from central Government.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The beef variable premium scheme operated throughout the period mentioned until it ceased at the beginning of April 1989. Funding from the European Community was at 25 per cent. until 19 May 1982 and at 40 per cent. thereafter.

  The beef suckler cow premium was introduced in 1980 and continues. It was fully funded by the European Community for the first two years and has been partly funded at varying rates since then.

  Statistics are not maintained in a form to provide the information on a county basis as requested by the hon. Member.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total complement of(a) the Yorkshire and (b) the Humberside fishing fleets; what are the categories of vessels; how many fishermen are employed in the industry; where are the home ports of the vessels, for the latest year for which figures are available, and what were the figures 10 years ago.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:
  9

  Numbers of Fishermen

  Regularly Employed

  Partially Employed

  Total

  21977

  21987

  1977

  1988

  1977

  1987

  (a) Yorkshire

  425

  586

  110

  354

  535

  940

  (b) Humberside

  2,773

  951

  333

  472

  3,106

  1,423

  Total

  3,198

  1,537

  443

  826

  3,641

  2,363

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

  2 2 1977= Figures as at 31 December 1977.

  1987= Figures as at 31 December 1987.

  Fish Landings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total values of all fish landings in Yorkshire and Humberside for each year for the last 10 years to date for the current year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The total values of all fish landings by United Kingdom and foreign vessels in Yorkshire and Humberside for the last 10 years and for January to April 1989 are as follows:

  1Yorkshire

  2Humberside

  (£'000)

  (£'000)

  1979

  7,577

  73,733

  1980

  6,269

  60,623

  1981

  7,582

  46,002

  1982

  8,886

  54,104

  1983

  10,477

  48,206

  1984

  9,542

  41,362

  1985

  11,519

  39,333

  1986

  12,412

  37,237

  1987

  13,556

  37,193

  19883

  13,305

  34,030

  19893 4

  2,967

  9,320

  1 Landings at the ports of Whitby, Scarborough, Bridlington and Filey.

  2 Landings at the ports of Hull, Grimsby, Immingham and Goole.

  3 Based on provisional landing statistics.

  4 January—April.

  Source: MAFF fisheries statistical retrieval system.

  Artificial Insemination
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will confine restrictions on artificial insemination services exclusively to those required for reasons of animal health.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Yes, subject to the constraints of Community zootechnical legislation.

  Salmonella
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many poultry flocks and how many birds, have been slaughtered since the signing of the Zoonoses Order 1989;

  (2) what compensation has been paid to poultry farmers affected by the slaughter of their flocks subsequent to the signing of the Zoonoses Order 1989.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since the introduction of the Zoonoses order on 1 March, 25 poultry flocks and 338,963 birds have been slaughtered at a cost of £261,163·76p. In addition 6,333 diagnostic samples have been taken from 45 flocks at a cost of £10,459·79p.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many random inspections 10
  have been carried out by his Department to ensure that the terms of the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989 are being fully and correctly complied with;

  (2) on how many occasions poultry farmers have been detected failing to comply fully and correctly with the provisions of the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989; and what action his Department has taken;

  (3) what evidence his Department had uncovered of the falsification of specified samples as required under the provisions of the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989; on how many occasions; and what action his Department has taken;

  (4) what system of checks his Department has put in place to verify that poultry farmers are supplying full and accurate information in compliance with the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Responsibility for enforcement of the Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989 lies with local authorities. As the measure has been in force only since 16 March, and as measures for the registration of poultry flocks are not yet in place, it would be premature to reach a judgment on the extent of compliance. At this early stage, poultry farmers and enforcement authorities are still in the process of introducing the necessary procedures and my Department is providing advice and guidance as necessary.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the evidence available on the extent of salmonella infection in the laying flocks of the United Kingdom and other EEC countries.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There have been 35 reports of isolation of salmonella enteritidis in table egg-laying flocks in the United Kingdom so far this year. We have no information on the number of cases reported in other EC countries but know that salmonella infection has been identified in Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, West Germany and Denmark.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European colleagues to ensure standard checking for salmonella infection in eggs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 4 April at column 51, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 20 April at column 280 and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on 25 April at column 492.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that all eggs imported into the United Kingdom are subject to the same examination for salmonella infection as those produced in the United Kingdom.
  11
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 20 April at column 280.

  Food Defences (Thames Estuary)
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what detailed information he has on the maintenance work done by the Anglian Water Authority on the flood barriers and flood gates in the Thames estuary, with particular reference to the area from Southend-on-Sea to Purfleet in each of the last five years; and whether he is satisfied with the authority's standards of maintenance.

  Mr. Ryder
  Maintenance of the flood gates and barriers in the Southend-on-Sea to Purfleet areas of the Thames estuary is a matter for the National Rivers Authority unit of Anglian water authority. Anglian gives high priority to effective and reliable operation of these gates and barriers and sets standards of maintenance accordingly. The gates and barriers are in any case of "fail safe" design and current overhaul work on barrier machinery is to be completed before the surge tide season commences next autumn.

  I am satisfied that the authority's arrangements are satisfactory.

  BSE
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any tests exist to diagnose the presence of scrapie or bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected material in animal feed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There is no test available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 375, when he first introduced recording procedures in respect of the progeny of bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle; how such recording takes place; and how many such progeny have so far been recorded in each year of the scheme's operation.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The collection and recording of data from all affected herds commenced in June 1987 and included details of all previously known cases. The Ministry's central veterinary laboratory holds computerised records of female progeny born up to six months before or at any time after the onset of clinical symptoms of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the dam and which are being retained in their herds of origin. Up to 9 May 1989 details of 562 such progeny had been recorded. Details of the years in which they were recorded are not held as the information is of no epidemiological value.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 375, under what provision he has taken power to control the movement of progeny from bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Powers to control the movement of progeny are provided by article 7 of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2 ) Order 1988, which is made under section 8 of the Animal Health Act 1981.
  12
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has concerning the relative concentration level of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in the brains, spinal columns and thymus of infected animals.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Proposals for research into this area are currently being considered by Dr. Tyrrell's research consultative committee.

  Animal Test Certificate (Pharmaceutical Products)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those pharmaceutical products being tested in 1988 under an animal test certificate under the Medicines Act which were subject to conditions banning the ultimate animal product from sale to the public.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Animal test certificates granted under the Medicines Act 1968 authorise field trials to be carried for the purpose of medicinal tests on animals. Such certificates are granted for two years and are renewable. Trials may not be in progress under all certificates at any one time and it would not be possible to identify products undergoing testing during any specific period.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances he bans from sale for human consumption products from animals subject to trials of pharmaceutical products under an animal test certificate.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Before an animal test certificate is granted all aspects relating to the safety of the product to be tested are rigorously assessed. In this assessment consideration is given to the safety to consumers of produce from treated animals. If this cannot be assured by a suitable withdrawal period then it would be made a condition of the certificate that treated animals or produce from treated animals should not be sold or supplied for human consumption.

  Nitrate-sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the area in hectacres which he assesses merits consideration for inclusion in a nitrate-sensitive areas scheme, and the level of funding he intends to allocate to the scheme in its first year.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am seeking the views of interested parties on all aspects of the nitrate-sensitive areas scheme including potential areas and compensation arrangements and I will make a further announcement when those consultations have been completed. I reassure the hon. Member that the Government have undertaken to pay compensation in the event of substantial restrictions going beyond good agricultural practice.

  Hydatid Disease
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the incidence of hydatid diseases; what action he is currently taking to monitor the disease; and what research his Department is conducting or funding into it.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Hydatid (tapeworm) infestation is not notifiable but slaughterhouse monitoring suggests
  13
  that, nationally, about 3 per cent. of sheep may be affected, although the problem is greater in Wales, particularly in Powys. The condition results from the ingestion by sheep of the eggs of the dog tapeworm by direct transfer from dog faeces or through contaminated food or water. The Ministry, in conjunction with the Welsh Office Agriculture Department, has undertaken a six-year control programme in Powys in which all dogs have been de-wormed at six-week intervals free of charge. This has resulted in a significant reduction of hydatid infestation. The Department is not currently funding research into hydatid.

  Sheepmeat Regime
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate his timetable for the introduction of a new sheepmeat regime; and what prior discussions with farmers he will be having in this connection.

  Mr. Ryder
  Discussions on the EC Commission's proposals for changes to the sheepmeat regime have made little progress. Negotiations may therefore continue for some time. My officials and I shall continue to maintain regular contacts with representatives of farmers throughout these negotiations.

  Agricultural Statistics Act 1979
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the repetitious nature of the information required from farmers and horticulturalists by virtue of the Agricultural Statistics Act 1979, he will arrange for such returns in future to be on an annual or biennial basis.

  Mr. Ryder
  Most of the information required under the Agricultural Statistics Act 1979 is collected annually, in the June agricultural census. This covers farm holdings above a specified threshold size and results in a wide range of statistical data which are necessary for Government purposes and are also much valued by the industry. Twenty per cent. of holdings are smaller, and are enumerated only every five years or so.

  Information on some items is also collected at other points in the year, to meet particular needs, but normally only from a sample of farmers. The need for statistical surveys, their content and their frequency are kept under regular review.

  Untreated Milk
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is available to him about the legal position relating to the supply of untreated milk in each European Community member state.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Detailed information is not readily available but I am aware that other member states impose various restrictions on the sale of untreated milk and I understand that in Denmark sales are prohibited with the exception of sales from one small family dairy in North Zealand.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) of 25 May,Official Report, column 1111 if he will make it his
  14
  policy to extend consumer freedom of choice by abandoning plans to outlaw the sale of green top milk to the general public.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on 25 May at columns 735–36.

  Milk (Bovine Somatotropin)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on 25 May,Official Report, column 1111, whether he will also make it his policy to require milk treated with bovine somatotropin to be labelled before going on sale to the general public.

  Mr. Ryder
  No. I fully recognise the need for consumers to be given adequate information to enable them to make an informed choice. However, the BST hormone occurs naturally in milk and it is not possible to distinguish between the natural hormone in the milk and that induced by the treatment of the cow with BST, since the detectable levels of the hormone in the milk are within the same range in both cases.

  Food Quality and Safety
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received urging that the responsibility for food quality and safety be removed from the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture; what has been his response; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  There is a firm link between agricultural production and the rest of the food chain, and therefore sense and logic in having the whole of the food chain within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This enables policy changes to he assessed for the whole of the food chain rather than just part of it for which it might have direct responsibility. I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that the Ministry does not give sufficient emphasis to the health implications of food. Indeed our overriding concern is that the food supply should be safe, wholesome and properly labelled.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Regional Pay
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of Education and Science whether he will make a statement about the introduction of regional pay in schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I shall shortly be holding further meetings with the employers and the teaching unions to discuss future pay determination arrangements.

  Teachers (Recruitment)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage the recruitment of former teachers back to the classroom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are already very successful in recruiting former teachers: over 50 per cent. of new
  15
  appointments in the four years up to March 1987 were taken up by former teachers. But we are increasing our efforts and have recently announced a new £2 million education support grant programme to support measures to support returners. I look to authorities to come up with imaginative schemes aimed at women in particular, which might include child care facilities and more flexible employment arrangements, such as part-time working and job sharing.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures he has available as regards science and mathematics graduates going into teaching; and what are the corresponding figures for five years ago.

  Mr. Butcher
  In the year ending March 1986 (the latest for which figures are available) the numbers of new entrants to teaching in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England with degrees (including B Eds) in science and mathematics were 1,710 and 860 respectively. The corresponding figures for the year ending March 1981 were 2,040 and 800.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he is making in meeting the problem of potential teacher shortages in certain subject areas.

  Mr. Butcher
  Since our action programme was launched nearly three years ago the decline in recruitment to teaching in the shortage subjects which we witnessed up to 1986 has been reversed. We shall continue and reinforce our action programme to ensure that we have the well-qualified teachers that we shall need in our schools in the 1990s.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received recently on the funding of student unions.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since April 1988 we have received 44 letters commenting on the funding of institutional student unions. Thirty two questioned the present system.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's review of student unions.

  Mr. Jackson
  We plan shortly to publish the factual analysis of the Department's survey of student unions. We are considering separately what action might best be taken and in due course will consult all those concerned on our conclusions.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing automatic membership of student unions; what percentage the latter represents of the former; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since April 1988 we have received 55 letters expressing a view on automatic membership of institutional student unions. Of these, 20 (36·4 per cent.) supported and 35 (63·6 per cent.) were against automatic membership.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the state of preparations for the introduction of the national core curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Preparations are well in hand. Statutory orders for mathematics, science and English have been laid; the National Curriculum Council has distributed guidance and training materials free; and LEAs' training programmes, supported by Government specific grants, are under way.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement concerning the provision of mother tongue teaching under the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend laid on 19 May the Education (National Curriculum) (Modern Foreign Languages) Order 1989 which specifies those languages eligible to be taught as the national curriculum foundation subject. The order includes the mother tongue languages of some ethnic communities in this country. A school would be able to offer any of these languages towards the national curriculum requirements, provided that it also offered at least one of the European Community working languages. Pupils would choose one modern foreign language from those offered by the school.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that teachers are fully prepared to implement the national curriculum in primary schools next term.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to ensure that adequate resources will be available to ensure full access to the national curriculum for children with special educational needs, where appropriate.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Government are making specific grants available to local education authorities to support the introduction of the national curriculum. In this financial year, there will be support for over £100 million expenditure. It is for authorities to decide how much to spend within this total in order to ensure full access to the national curriculum for children with special educational needs, where appropriate.

  Careers Education
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any discussions with local authority associations with regard to careers education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has not done so recently but he and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Wales have promoted the widest collaboration in careers education and guidance through the "Working Together" initiative which they launched two years ago.
  17
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given in the current year to secondary schools with regard to careers education.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).

  Higher Education
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the case for widening access to higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  Many of the large number of representations we receive on higher education matters explicitly favour wider access, as do the Government.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to review the identification and educational treatment of dyslexia in school pupils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is for individual local education authorities in the exercise of their statutory duties under the 1981 Education Act to make provision for the identification of children with special educational needs and the provision of appropriate education to meet their needs. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to amend these statutory procedures.

  Pupil Testing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has to report on his plans for testing at age seven; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Contracts have been let for the development of standard assessment tasks in the core subjects and technology for seven-year-old pupils. Work has already begun to develop, trial and pilot these SATs in preparation for the first unreported assessments in summer 1991. The first reported assessments will take place in summer 1992. Assessment arrangements for other foundation subjects will be phased in later.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his progress in implementing a system of testing for pupils at ages seven, 11 and 14 years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum system of testing rests on the establishment, for each foundation subject, of programmes of study and attainment targets. These will be introduced for mathematics and science for five and 11-year-olds, and for English for five-year-olds, this autumn. Those pupils will be assessed in these subjects on a trial basis when they reach the ages of seven and 14 respectively in 1991 and 1992, and on a reported basis in subsequent years. Contracts have already been let for the development of standard assessment tasks for seven-year-olds and bids for SATs for 14-year-olds are under consideration. Assessment arrangements in these subjects for 11 and 16-year-olds and in other subjects at each age will be phased in over succeeding years.

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals; and what he discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend and I meet representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time in the course of normal business.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his plans to introduce top-up loans for students.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received on his proposal to introduce student loans.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the response of the financial institutions to his White Paper on student loans.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of his White Paper on student loans.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of his White Paper on student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the representations he has received from Scottish universities regarding his White Paper on student loans.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the representations he has received from Scottish universities regarding his White Paper on student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have received responses to the While Paper from each of the Scottish universities or their student bodies, and from the Standing Conference of the Universities of Scotland. They are being taken into account, along with all other responses, as we proceed to develop a scheme for the introduction of top-up loans.

  Careers Education
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has issued advice to careers departments in secondary schools in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate published "Careers education and guidance from 5 to 16" in its "Curriculum Matters" series last year. This has informed local education authorities and schools, and authorities drew upon it when preparing the statements of future policy which they submitted recently to my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Language Study
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any proposals to increase the number of Russian language assistants currently in secondary schools.

  Mr. Jackson
  The programme of co-operation in the scientific, educational and cultural fields between the United Kingdom and the USSR for 1989–1991 provides for the number of Russian language assistants currently in the United Kingdom to be increased to a maximum of six a year from academic year 1989–90.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to enable schools to take advantage of opportunities provided by the European Community of other member nations in assisting the teaching in their schools of languages that are currently unavailable to schools in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to enable schools to take advantage of opportunities provided by the European Community for other member nations in assisting the teaching in their schools of languages that are presently unavailable to schools in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is not aware that there are opportunities relating to the teaching of languages in schools provided by the European Community that are available to schools in the other members states but not in England and Wales. He informed the House on 24 May of the agreement on 22 May over the terms of the Community's Lingua programme. The programme is concerned with the support for the improvement of foreign language competence through initial and continuing vocational education. This includes the training of foreign language teachers in schools in the United Kingdom as in other member states and our schools will benefit in equal measure.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage secondary school pupils to study two modern languages.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum will include a modern foreign language as a foundation subject at secondary level to be studied by all pupils between the ages of II and 16. From this autumn, pupils will have to study a modern foreign language for a reasonable time in the first three years of secondary schooling. This requirement will be extended to the last two years of compulsory schooling later. Schools will be free to offer a second foreign language during the 11–16 phase or in the sixth form, in addition to meeting the national curriculum requirements. This reflects the Government's policy on modern foreign languages in the school curriculum which was set out in my right hon. Friend's policy statement "Modern Languages in the School Curriculum" published in January 1988.

  Morris Report
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Morris report on research councils' responsibilities for biological sciences.
  20
  Mr. Jackson
  This report was commissioned by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in June 1988 and Mr. Morris presented his report to the board at the end of April. The board is now seeking the views of the research councils on the report before submitting detailed advice to my right hon. Friend later in the year. In the meantime the chairman of the board has sent the report to my right hon. Friend and a copy has been placed in the Library. He would not wish to comment on the report until he has had the opportunity to consider the board's advice.

  School Governors
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress his Department has made in encouraging parents to become school governors.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the number of schools which have established governing bodies containing parent governors as required by the Education Reform Act.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A recent survey for the Department suggests that more than 99 per cent. of parent governor places at county and maintained special schools have been filled.

  Parents
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans for providing education or training for parents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The committee of inquiry into discipline in schools has recommended that the Government should develop a post-school education strategy aimed at promoting socially responsible parenthood. I am considering this recommendation.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the initial teacher training course at the faculty of education at University College, Cardiff.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received several representations at the faculty of education at what is now the University of Wales College of Cardiff.

  Capital Programme (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the capital programme for schools in Cornwall.

  Mr. Butcher
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the 1989–90 capital allocation with a deputation from the Cornwall education committee whom she saw during her visit to the county on 12 April. A number of hon. Members, the chief education officer of the authority and members of the public have written to Ministers on this subject.

  City and Guilds Institute
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Secretary of State last met the general secretary of the City and Guilds Institute; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend last met the Director General of the City and Guilds of London Institute on 17 November 1987. A range of vocational education issues were discussed with the chairman and senior members of CGLI. Opportunities have arisen since that time for a number of informal discussions with both the Secretary of State and myself.

  My right hon. Friend has a meeting arranged with the chairman and Director General of CGLI for 14 June when he intends both to review the achievements of CGLI and discuss the initiatives suggested in his speech to the Association for Colleges of Further and Higher Education on 15 February 1989.

  Zidovudine
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the figures of participants in the MRC/INSERM trial of zidovudine given in reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe on 22 February,Official Report, column 636.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of participants enrolled in the MRC/INSERM trial of zidovudine up to 26 May 1989 was 382 in the United Kingdom and 384 in France.

  Creches
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to encourage the provision of creches to attract experienced teachers with their own children back into the profession.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Our education support grant programme for 1990–91 includes support for expenditure of £2 million on local recruitment of returners and mature new entrants to the teaching profession. We are looking for imaginative proposals from local authorities which we can support, and which might include the provision of childcare facilities for teachers' children.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by his Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Electronic surveillance listening devices are not used by the Department of Education and Science, nor by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will express the salary received by a primary school teacher at the top of scale 2 in 1973–74 in current day's prices; and what salary a primary school deputy head receives at the present day.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A teacher with a good honours degree at the top of scale two in 1973–74 would have received a22
  basic salary of £2,699. This is equal to £13,358 at April 1989 prices. The salaries of deputy head teachers vary acording to the size of the school. The deputy head of a typical (group 4) primary school now earns £16,809.

  School Milk
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that all state nurseries are made aware of their right to claim reimbursement for school milk supplied to their children under the Welfare Food Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for an initiative of this kind.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (I) what Government funding is currently available for research into the causes and treatment of retinal conditions;

  (2) what information he has concerning current research projects studying the detection and alleviation of retinal conditions.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council which receives a grant-in-aid from this Department, is the main agency through which the Government fund medical research in the United Kingdom. The council determines its own priorities for the support of research, with advice from its expert boards and committees. In 1987–88, the last year for which figures are available, the MRC spent £134,000 on research relevant to retinal conditions.

  I understand from the MRC that one of the major current interests in research on retinal conditions, and particularly in connection with retinitis pigmentosa, relates to the genetic basis of such diseases. This is the focus of work generally at the MRC human genetics unit which is located at the western general hospital, Edinburgh. Specifically, the unit is undertaking the following studies concerning retinitis pigmentosa:

  i. DNA sequence markers in single gene disorders;

  ii. Mapping the x-linked retinitis pigmentosa gene with a view to the development of clinically useful probes.

  Some support for research on retinal conditions may also be provided by this Department through UFC block grants to universities and medical schools.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether any public funded current or proposed research project into genetic handicap involves the use of the human embryo; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether the Medical Research Council is involved in any research project into genetic handicap which necessitates the use of the human embryo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the Medical Research Council is involved in research at the Hammersmith hospital on the pre-implantation diagnosis of genetic disease; and at Edinburgh and Oxford, on the development of techniques for the diagnosis of genetic handicap. There is other research concerning pre-implantation diagnosis at Bourn hall, Cambridge, on sexing of human embryos; at Hammersmith hospital, for prevention of genetic diseases; and at Oxford by the
  23
  Cancer Research Campaign on derivation of cell lines from the human conceptus to investigate the growth regulation of embryonic and tumour cells.

  Staff Dispersal
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to disperse staff from his Department in London to Darlington; how many staff are involved, and in what grade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Government policy requires Departments to review the location of their work with a view to relocation where advantageous. The Department is accordingly considering whether there is scope for relocation of any of its headquarters based activities and, if so, where such activities would be best placed. Relocation of work to Darlington is amongst the options under consideration.

SCOTLAND

  Actions for Debt
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will implement the recommendation of the Grant committee, Cmnd. 3248, that both actions of adjudication in implement and actions of adjudication for debt should be competent in the sheriff court.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As part of its second programme of law reform, the Scottish Law Commission has inititated consultations on proposals for the reform of the law on adjudications for debt and related matters. Its report is awaited.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the amounts of nuclear wastes, spent fuel and plutonium which will be inherited by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. from the South of Scotland Electricity Board after privatisation.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 11 May 1989 at column 429.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to issue a circular on alcohol misuse similar to circular (89)4 issued by the Department of Health on 20 February.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The circular was issued in draft on 25 May to a range of bodies who have been invited to submit comments to the Scottish Home and Health Department by 30 June.

  Liver Transplants
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the funding of a unit for liver transplants in Scotland; and what recent discussions have been held on such a proposal.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The national specialist services advisory committee is currently considering the need for 24
  liver transplant facilities in Scotland. Members of the committee have visited existing transplant units at Birmingham and Leeds. They have also had recent discussions with clinicians who have an interest in the provision of a liver transplant service in Scotland. When I have received the committee's advice I shall look at what needs to be done.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the remaining seven health boards to operate a computerised cervical cytology call/recall scheme for women aged 20 to 65 years at three-yearly intervals.

  Mr. Rifkind
  We asked health boards to establish a computerised call/recall cervical cancer screening service for all women in Scotland aged between 20 and 60 years of age at five yearly intervals. Of the five health boards which have not yet introduced a computerised system, Grampian and Shetland health boards intend to do so during July, Orkney health board during August, Dumfries and Galloway health board during September and Lothian health board during December 1989.

  Hospital Consultants (Study Leave)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give for each health board for each of the past three yarn the amount spent on study leave for consultants;

  (2) what information he has on the number of consultants in each health board who take their full allocation of study leave.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are taken by health boards to encourage consultants to take their full allocation of study leave.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health boards provide financial resources to enable consultants to take study leave and boards also provide staff with information on suitable courses. The question of what study is appropriate is essentially a professional matter for the individual consultant to decide.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each of the last five years for which figures are available the amount paid to individuals in expenses for local planning appeals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Forestry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from forest tree nurserymen and other forestry interests concerning the effects which the ending of schedule D reliefs for investment in forestry is having on the sale of young trees for planting.
  25
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representations on this subject have been received by my right hon. and learned Friend and by other Ministers from the Horticultural Trades Association, from six hon. Members on behalf of four nursery managers and from one nursery manager directly.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will announce the fees to be charged to students attending Scottish institutions other than universities in the academic year 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For the academic year 1989–90, my right hon. and learned Friend has prescribed the following fee levels for home students and for students from other European Community (EC) countries on full-time advanced courses in the central institutions and colleges of education (fees for 1988–89 are shown in brackets):

  £

  £

  Postgraduate courses

  1,890

  (1,800)

  Undergraduate and equivalent courses

  607

  (578)

  My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that with effect from the academic year 1990–91 the fee levels he will prescribe will relate only to the maximum amounts for the reimbursement of fees through the awards system, so that the colleges will be free in practice to set fees above this level if they so wish.

  For non-advanced courses, the central institutions and colleges of education will he invited to set their own fees, having regard to fees charged for comparable courses at local authority further education colleges.

  Fees for home and other EC students on courses at local authority colleges are the responsibility of the local authorities. I understand that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has decided to recommend fees for such students as follows:

  £

  £

  Advanced full-time courses

  610

  (578)

  Non-advanced full-time courses

  502

  (440)

  For overseas students the Government's policy is that students should pay fees that cover the cost of their education. Local authorities and institutions are free to determine the fees to be charged in accordancee with that policy, and in the light of their own circumstances. I understand that COSLA has decided to recommend to local authorities the following fees for students at local authority colleges paying the overseas rate:

  £

  £

  Advanced courses

  4,145

  (3,890)

  Non-advanced courses

  2,285

  (2,145)

  Plastic Flowers (Lennox Castle Hospital)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Greater Glasgow health board spent on plastic flowers for Lennox castle hospital in the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the financial year 1988–89 Greater Glasgow health board spent £300 on plastic 26
  flowers. The board has committed funds to improving the appearance of the wards at Lennox castle, of which I note that the hon. Member has been critical.

  Dental Practice Board
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what additional costs have been incurred in the change in organisation from the Dental Estimates Board for Scotland to the Dental Practice Board; and whether he will itemise the main headings of expense;

  (2) whether the change from the Dental Estimates Board for Scotland to the Dental Practice Board has been accompanied by any additional employment of personnel;

  (3) whether he will list the main administrative categories of personnel in the Dental Practice Board for Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The change in the board's name to reflect its functions more accurately has not resulted in additional costs or personnel. The main administrative categories of personnel are set out below.

  Whitley Council Grade

  Numbers as at 1 June 1989

  Grade 18

  1

  Grade 14

  1

  Grade 4

  3

  Executive Officer (2)

  2

  Grade 1

  11

  Higher Clerical Officer

  46

  Clerical Officer

  75

  Machine operator-typist

  31

  Part-time Clerical Officer

  ·5

  Total

  171·5

  Dental Practitioners
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for maintaining a continuous supply of high calibre dental practitioners in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A working party was set up in October last year to consider changes in the current provision of dental education in Scotland. The working party, as part of its remit, is examining the needs of the NHS in Scotland for an adequate supply and distribution of dentists, and for effective and high quality programmes of postgraduate and continuing education. I expect its report shortly.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department is doing to improve community care provision in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since taking office we have increased the planning figure for local authority spending on social work services by 67 per cent. in real terms. In the current year the planning figure is £461·7 million, 13 per cent. higher than last year and 6 per cent. higher than. authorities' own budgets for last year. Within these resources it is primarily for local authorities in consultation as necessary with health boards and other interests to provide levels of community care provision appropriate to their area. More specifically, the Government are studying the report by Sir Roy Griffiths on community care and will bring forward proposals in due course.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to encourage all local authorities in Scotland to introduce or extend a travel concessionary scheme to include people with mental health problems.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the terms of the Concessionary Travel for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Act 1980 any local authority may make arrangements for the granting of travel concessions to persons suffering from mental disorders. It is, however, for the local authorities to decide what type of scheme is appropriate to their areas.

  Self-governing Schools
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the information gathered on the likely change of teacher numbers resulting from his proposals for opting-out schools and their devolved budgetary power.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The recurrent grant to a self-governing school will be determined so that the school will be neither better nor worse off than it could reasonably have expected if it had remained under local authority management. The grant will thus reflect the education authority's spending on salaries, superannuation and national insurance for teachers. It will be for the board of management of each self-governing school to decide how to spend this grant and how many teachers it wishes to employ in that school.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has given to the Scottish section of the Civil Engineering Contractors regarding its objections to his paper on Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Lang
  We are currently reassessing the proposals in the Scottish Enterprise White Paper in the light of all the responses received, and shall announce our detailed decisions in due course.

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding payment of commercial rates and the community charge by guest-house owners and bed-and-breakfast landladies in Scotland catering for more than six guests.

  Mr. Lang
  A number of representations have been received about the liability to non-domestic rates of properties which provide accommodation for tourists and which are also used in part as a sole or main residence. Decisions as to the value on which non-domestic rates are levied are for the assessor, subject to the appropriate appeal procedures.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the regulations covering severe weather cash aid to local authorities.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Special financial assistance to local authorities has been offered on an extra-statutory basis 28
  with the approval of the Treasury. Any payments due once claims have been assessed will be presented for the approval of Parliament in the form of a supplementary estimate in due course. The terms of the assistance made available were sent to every local authority in a Scottish Office circular (Finance Circular No. 6/89) dated 28 April 1989.

  Bellwin Scheme
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider abolishing the minimum level for claims of £120,000 from individual local authorities under the Bellwin scheme.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There is no minimum level of £120,000 for claims under the Bellwin scheme of special financial assistance to local authorities. However, on all occasions when assistance under the scheme has been made available, authorities have been expected to meet an initial tranche of emergency expenditure up to a threshold set to reflect the fact that authorities have statutory powers to deal with emergencies and are expected to plan accordingly. Thresholds, based on a proportion of their penny rate, ensure that the smaller the authority the lower the threshold.

  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hectares of coniferous and deciduous wasteland, respectively, were planted under the new woodland grant scheme in the first 12 months of its operation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grants are available under the new woodland grant scheme for the rehabilitation of neglected woodlands under 20 years of age, provided they contain an adequate stocking of suitable species and have not been previously grant-aided. In the nine months of 31 March 1989, the Forestry Commission had paid such grants under the scheme in respect of four hectares of conifer woodland and 26 hectares of broadleaved woodland.

  Mr. and Mrs. Gilchrist
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which media outlets were notified by the Scottish Information Office of the home visit of Mr. and Mrs. Gilchrist by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on Sunday 14 May; and what advance notice of press involvement was given to Mr. and Mrs. Gilchrist.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for education and health did not visit the home of anyone called Gilchrist on May 14.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the percentage change in the numbers of local government electoral registers between 1988 and 1989 in the Dumbarton district.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to table 1 in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Monitor EL 89–1, from which the percentage change may be derived. A copy of the monitor is in the Library.

  Single Market
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what preparations are being made by his Department to improve communications with the continent via the south-east of England in preparation for the introduction of the single European market on 1 January 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has had meetings with the Chairman of the British Rail Board on how to ensure that Scotland benefits fully from rail links to the Channel tunnel. Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act requires British Rail to publish a plan by the end of 1989 setting out its proposals for international rail services through the Tunnel. British Rail are consulting widely with interested parties in the regions over the preparation of this plan. With regard to trunk roads, the A74 is being upgraded to motorway, thus linking the central Scotland motorway network to the M6/Ml/M25 route, Scotland's essential link to the south and Europe. In addition, a major study into routes south of Edinburgh is nearing completion.

  EC Funds
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the nature of all funds granted to Scotland from the European Community in the period May 1979 to May 1989; and if he will give headings of the European fund titles and list the total value under each heading of funds granted to Scotland.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  [holding answer 9 May 1989]: Scotland has been awarded some £1,400 million in grants during the period 1979–88 from the European Community's structural funds—the European regional development fund, the European social fund and the agricultural guidance fund. In addition, some £1,500 million has been awarded to Scotland from other Community sources, principally in the form of loans from the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Investment Bank. Details of the main funding sources are set out in the table below.

  Awards 1979–88

  £ million

  European Regional Development Fund

  736

  European Social Fund1

  246

  Agricultural Guidance Fund2

  385

  European Coal and Steel Community3

  82

  European Investment Bank

  1,384

  Notes:

  1 Figures available only for 1982–88. Previously figures were not broken down into regions.

  2 Excludes Scottish share of market support expenditure incurred by the Intervention Board for Agricultural produce.

  3 Figure relates to article 56 reconversion loans. Regional breakdown of other ECSC assistance is not available.

  Prisons (Lawyers' Visits)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for the Lord Advocate to make a study of the claims made by a random selection of legal firms in Scotland for visits to prisoners in Barlinnie, Saughton, Perth, Shots and Peterhead prisons, using the legal aid system; and if he will set out the findings against the actual entries made in the official visitors' records of those prisons of lawyers and other personnel from the firms studied.
  30
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: No. The administration of legal aid, including the settlement of solicitors' accounts, is the responsibility of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Claims from solicitors are subject to examination, and the board's audit and investigation section would report any cases of possible fraud to the procurator fiscal. If the hon. Member has information which is relevant to the board's assessment of legal aid accounts, he should pass that to the board for consideration.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the United Kingdom has given by way of(a) grants and (b) loans to Iraq during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Government grants to Iraq over the past five years have been exclusively for training of Iraqi students. The DTI has disbursed:

  £

  1987–88

  60,000

  1988–89

  60,000

  The three other principal schemes are: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and awards scheme, the British Council fellowship scheme and the Department of Education and Science—overseas research students award scheme, for which the figures are:

  £

  1984–85

  86,400

  1985–86

  51,200

  1986–87

  72,600

  1987–88

  73,800

  1988–89

  92,000

  Under the United Kingdom-Iraq financial protocols, the Government have negotiated the following Export Credit Guarantee Department-backed credits during the past five years:

  £

  1984

  300 million

  1987

  175 million

  1988

  340 million

  Kurds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the United Nations to investigate allegations of human rights violations, torture and genocide by the Iraqi Government against the Kurds.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have repeatedly made clear to the Iraqi authorities our concern at their failure to respect human rights, particularly those of the Kurdish community. We play a leading role in discussion of Iraqi human rights violations at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. A strongly-worded British-sponsored resolution in March was blocked by an Iraqi procedural motion.

  Mr. John McCarthey
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken this year to secure the release of Mr. John McCarthey, a hostage in Beirut; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Before the break in relations with Iran, we raised the issue frequently with the Iranians. We have also raised the matter with other Governments and groups who might have influence on the hostage holders. Her Majesty's Ambassdor in Beirut remains active in a difficult and dangerous environment in following up all available information. We will continue to do the maximum possible.

  Nelson Mandela
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reply has been received to the request by the British ambassador to South Africa to visit Nelson Mandela.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our main concern is to see Mr. Mandela freed unconditionally. Our efforts are devoted to that end. In response to a letter from Mr. Mandela, the ambassador said that he would welcome a fact-to-face discussion. We understand that it would be for Mr. Mandela formally to notify the South African authorities if he wishes to pursue this.

  Refuseniks
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Soviet authorities the case of the long-term refuseniks Emanuel and Judith Lurie who have recently been refused an exit visa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have raised the Lurie's case with the Soviet authorities on numerous occasions—most recently during Mr. Gorbachev's visit to Britain in April. The latest Soviet response was that their application to emigrate is currently under consideration by a Supreme Soviet commission. We shall not let up until they are allowed to leave.

  George Belitsky
  Mr. John L. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Russians about their continued failure to grant an exit visa to George Belitsky.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made repeated representations to the Soviet authorities about Dr. Belitsky, most recently during Mr. Gorbachev's visit to Britain in April, and we will continue to press them until he is allowed to emigrate.

  Partial Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and where the initial discussions on the amendment conference for the 1963 partial test ban treaty took place; and when and where he expects the trilateral discussions between the partial test ban treaty depository states to take place.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Initial discussions between the depository Governments have taken place over the last 32
  two months in London, Washington, Moscow and Geneva. We expect that the depository Governments will meet trilaterally later this month, probably in Geneva.

  Mr. Douglas Forsyth
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations have been made and when by his Department to the Egyptian Government to hasten the determination of the case brought by Mr. Douglas Forsyth in the Egyptian courts to recover the control and possession of his villa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No representations have been made on this matter since the Egyptian Court of Appeal announced its determination on 22 June 1988. Mr. Forsyth subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) in Cairo. He has been warned by his legal advisers that it may take four or five years for a decision.

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by his Department to the Egyptian Government concerning the payment of a tax refund owing to Mr. Douglas Forsyth by the Egyptian Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A letter from Her Majesty's consul in Cairo to the general director of taxes in the appropriate tax office was given to Mr. Forsyth's legal advisers on 9 May. This asked for payment of the refund to be expedited. On 16 May Mr. Forsyth's legal adviser informed the consul that a cheque had been issued and passed to the Central bank. This has now been credited to Mr. Forsyth's account.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out Her Majesty's Government's policy in regard to the future continued requirement for United Kingdom retention of nuclear weapons in the light of threshold and aspirant nuclear weapons states capacity to develop or obtain nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We continue to subscribe to the NATO policy that our security will depend for the foreseeable future on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional weapons. We fully observe our obligations under the 1968 non-proliferation treaty including those relating to the non-transferral of nuclear weapons technology.

  Environmental Protection
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom ambassador to the United Nations has made any recent representations at the United Nations to promote environmental protection and global initiatives to achieve this.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific environmental initiatives the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations supported during 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom permanent representative to the United Nations recently proposed the early
  33
  negotiation of a convention on climate change and the strengthening of existing United Nations institutions concerned with environmental matters, especially the United Nations environment programme.

  Missiles
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell),Official Report, 13 April, columns 646–47, what assessment has been made of the SAAD-16 contract; what contacts have been made with the ambassadors of Egypt, Iraq and Argentina, or their diplomatic representatives in the United Kingdom arising from the Condor-2 missile development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no reason to doubt the recent media speculation that the SAAD-16 project is connected to Iraq's missile development programme. I made clear to the Iraqi ambassador on 19 April our serious concern over ballistic missile proliferation.

  Falkland Fisheries
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress within the Falklands fisheries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Falklands fishery is in its third successful year. The number of licences issued is regulated to meet conservation targets recommended by the renewable resources assessment group, Imperial college. Accordingly, the Falkland Islands Government reduced the number available for the 1989 second season. Revenue in 1989 is estimated to be £29 million.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to introduce a Bill to incorporate the United Nations declaration of human rights into the law applicable to Hong Kong citizens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are considering with the Hong Kong Government as a matter of priority whether to enact a human rights ordinance in Hong Kong and, if so, what form it should take.

  Namibia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the South African withdrawal from Namibia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  South African forces in Namibia are restricted to base and their phased withdrawal in accordance with the United Nations plan is in progress.

  Israel
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his meeting with the Prime Minister of the state of Israel on 23 May.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I had a frank and friendly exchange 34
  of views on middle eastern issues with Mr. Shamir. We welcomed his proposals for elections in the occupied territories as a useful step forward, but emphasised the need for progress towards a solution based on territory for peace.

  Spying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) accredited diplomats and (b) other foreign nationals given official working permits have been expelled or deported from the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 for activities deemed to be incompatible with their status; and if he will list them by countries.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As the information is not readily available, I will write to the hon. Member once it is to hand.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to other Governments to take Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are working for a successful outcome to the international conference on Indo-Chinese refugees in Geneva on 13 and 14 June, which we hope will result in a major international effort to resettle all the remaining Indo-Chinese refugees in the region, including the 14,300 in Hong Kong, as part of a comprehensive solution to this problem.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertakings he has received from the Chinese Government regarding the treatment and status of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The matter has not arisen. It is our firm intention to ensure that the problem of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong is resolved well before the transfer of sovereignty in 1997.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by his Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is not the practice to comment on matters of this sort.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Geneva talks on chemical weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 9 May. The next round of the negotiations begins on 13 June.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many seizures of ivory have been made by the Hong Kong authorities from organisations and premises owned by the Poon family.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if CITES certificates are attached to the export of worked ivory from Hong Kong.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  CITES certificates are normally attached to exports of worked ivory from Hong Kong because most importing countries require them, although this is not a legal requirement of the Hong Kong Government.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what value of worked ivory was imported from the United Arab Emirates into Hong Kong in October 1988; how many CITES permits were issued for the United Arab Emirates in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No worked ivory was imported from the United Arab Emirates in October 1988. Hong Kong extended its import licence control to cover all forms of ivory on 5 August 1988, and since then no licences have been issued for import of worked ivory from the United Arab Emirates.

  Military Aid
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much military aid has been granted by Her Majesty's Government in the current financial year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We expect to spend £3 million on supplies of non-lethal military equipment during the current financial year. In addition, £23 million will be spent on foreign and Commonwealth military training in the United Kingdom and overseas.

  Belize
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to maintain the military presence of Britain in Belize as long as the people and government of Belize wish it.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our policy is to maintain the British garrison in Belize for an appropriate period.

ENERGY

  Coal Industry (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimate he has made of the total number of jobs directly and indirectly dependent on the coal industry of(a) South Yorkshire and (b) North Yorkshire; what were these figures for five years and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Figures for the number of jobs indirectly dependent on the coal industry are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  36
  Information on jobs directly dependent on the coal industry for the areas and dates requested, is as follows:

  North Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  March 1979

  36,856

  38,803

  March 1984

  31,710

  31,840

  March 1989

  14,705

  14,724

  The data refer to men associated with British Coal's North and South Yorkshire areas.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas),Official Report, 15 May, column 109, the United Kingdom has any continuing interest in the imposition of bilateral nuclear safeguards implemented before May 1979 on plutonium exported for use in the Rapsodie test fast reactor in France since November 1964.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The plutonium was exported under the terms of the United Kingdom Euratom agreement 1959 which emphasised the peaceful nature of the co-operation. As far as the Department is aware it remains subject to Euratom safeguards.

  Harwell Nuclear Plant
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how far the refurbishment of the Harwell reactor has progressed following the July 1987 plan set out for refurbishment.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority informs me that the refurbishment programme for the nuclear research reactors at Harwell is reviewed annually. The current programme has been amended to take account of the closure of the PLUTO reactor in March 1990. This amended programme has been approved by Harwell's reactor safety committee and will be discussed with the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how long it is proposed to store Harwell reactors sea dump barrels containing intermediate level waste in their present condition; and what plans there are to make them safer.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Drums of radioactive wastes prepared for the 1983 sea disposal operation will continue to be stored in a safe condition and will be prepared for eventual disposal in the deep facility for low and intermediate level wastes which Nirex has been asked to develop.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many workers at Harwell reactors exceeded the radiation dosages of(a) 15mSv and (b) 50mSv; and what was the average dose of those working in the reactor area alone;

  (2) what measures are being taken to ensure that doses received by the Harwell work force and local population are as low as reasonably possible; and what dose levels Harwell is working towards achieving.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Details of the radiation exposures incurred by Harwell staff are published annually in the UKAEA report on radiological protection and occupational health.
  37
  The UKAEA seeks to keep doses to the lowest reasonably practicable level. From 1 January 1988 it set an upper limit on individual dose of 30mSv per year, which is not normally to be exceeded except in cases of extreme occupational necessity. No one on the Harwell reactor site exceeded this level in 1988.

  Exposure of the public to discharges of radioactive wastes from Harwell is monitored routinely and the monitoring results and dose estimates published annually in the Harwell laboratory report on radioactive discharges and environmental monitoring. I am arranging for copies of this report and the report on radiological protection and occupational health to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if there are any plans to improve the current state of the effluent treatment works at Harwell; and what mechanisms exist to shut down the flow of effluent into the Thames in the event of it exceeding waste safety levels;

  (2) what measures have been taken to ensure that discharges and waste from the Harwell reactors in the river Thames are below the new general derived limits in the NRPB document GS-8.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The liquid effluent treatment plant is maintained in a condition which enables it to meet the requirements imposed by the relevant discharge consents issued by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The measured effect of these discharges is typically between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of NRPB general derived limits. Treated effluent is stored for analysis and is not discharged unless it complies with the requirements of the consents.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when a detailed inventory of the Harwell reactor core will be made available to the public.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This information has already been made available in a letter to Dr. P. Taylor of the political ecology research group associated with Oxford city council, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he plans to publish the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate safety audit of Harwell.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that 1 gave him on 31 January at column 156.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the route of the waste pipelines from the Harwell reactors to the Thames will be made public.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that information about the route of the pipeline is made available upon request, by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority as required to avoid accidental damage to the pipeline.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by his Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No.

  Nuclear Reactors (Safety)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, in view of the fact that the proposed pressurised water reactors at Sizewell B and Hinkley C will be the first to depend for their reactor safety solely on computer systems(a) what assessment he has made of the safety implications of and (b) what discussions he has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board about the advisability of relying solely on these computer systems; and if he has any plans to extend the new defence standard (Defstan 00–55) to those reactors.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Sizewell B and the Hinkley Point C pressurised water reactors (PWRs) will have a computer based primary protection system designed to protect against all faults, and a non-computerised secondary system which will provide protection against the less unlikely faults. Both systems are at the design and development stage. The approval of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate will be required before the reactors are allowed to operate. The Ministry of Defence computer software standard "Defstan 00–55" is still in the process of development. It is for the Central Electricity Generating Board to decide if it wishes to use this standard. Its decision would be considered by the Nil as part of the safety case.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government is considering to pipe natural gas from the South of Ireland to the North; what implications there are for those plans of the current state of repair of the gas works in the North; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Government have no such plans.

  Carrick House Hostel
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will investigate the alleged intimidation of residents by Northern Ireland Housing Executive staff to prevent them from taking their grievances and fears about the future of the Carrick House hostel to the media; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I am advised by the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that the residents of Carrick House hostel have not been intimidated in any way by staff of the Housing Executive. While residents have access on a daily basis to Housing Executive management on matters of concern to them they are, of course, free as private individuals to approach the media at any time about their concerns which have been given considerable publicity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the short-term and long-term future of Carrick House hostel for homeless men, Belfast.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by the chairman that no changes will be made in the day-to-day running of the
  39
  hostel until 1 April 1990 at the earliest. In the meantime the future of the hostel in its present form will be the subject of a strategic review. No plans for Carrick House will be finalised without prior consultation with the residents.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to consult the residents, staff and other interested bodies about both the short and long-term future of Carrick House; and what steps it is intended to take in the future to carry out such consultations.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I am advised by the chairman that staff of the Carrick House hostel have been made fully aware of the review of the hostel's role which will be undertaken by Housing Executive management. Regular meetings are taking place between residents' representatives and hostel management at which issues of mutual interest are discussed. These will shortly be supported by a regular newsletter to all residents aimed at reinforcing the consultative process.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure that adequate health and safety standards, medical facilities, hygiene facilities, social counselling facilities and staffing levels exist for the residents of Carrick House.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and I am advised by the chairman that Carrick House hostel has for many years provided basic facilities and support services for residents. There has been no diminution of existing standards and services since the hostel came under the Housing Executive management. The prospects for enhanced facilities and services commensurate with the needs of residents will be addressed as part of a forthcoming strategic review of the future of the hostel.

  Dental Examinations
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been refunded as a consequence of the illegal charges for dental examinations between 1 and 16 January.

  Mr. Needham
  The total amount refunded to patients was £16,455·60.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional use of personnel was incurred and what was the time element involved in rectifying the error relating to illegal dental examination charges between 1 and 16 January.

  Mr. Needham
  No additional personnel were used. As the work involved was undertaken by existing staff as part of their normal duties, it is not possible to assess the time element involved in rectifying the error.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what costs were incurred in rectifying the errors relating to the illegal charges for dental examinations between 1 and 16 January.

  Mr. Needham
  The administrative cost of arranging for dentists to refund charges paid by patients for dental examinations carried out during the period I to 16 January was £2,612.

  Grey Squirrels
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in force to control grey squirrels in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Under article 15(1) of The Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 it is an offence to release grey squirrels into the wild. Grey squirrels may be killed or taken, other than by prohibited methods, by owners or occupiers, or persons authorised by them on their own land. The present population of these animals does not constitute a threat.

  Health Board Assets
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of assets disposed of by each health board during 1987–88; and what was the total value of those assets.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: Monies received in respect of assets disposed of by each Health and Social Service board for 1987–88 are as shown in the table:

  Equipment and Vehicles

  Land and Buildings

  £

  £

  Northern Board

  14,256

  125,894

  Southern Board

  15,787

  145,265

  Eastern Board

  nil

  529,887

  Western Board

  40,637

  195,077

  70,680

  996,123

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library details of each major publicity campaign mounted by his Department in 1985–86 and each successive year, including in each case the objectives of the campaign, the intended audience and the outcome of the monitoring of the achievement of the intended objectives, and national research conducted for him by the Central Office of Information together with a note of the intended objectives in the campaigns in 1989–90.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: The information has been placed in the Library.

  Police Posts
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many incidents requiring Royal Ulster Constabulary action have occurred in the area formerly served by each limited opening Royal Ulster Constabulary sub-station in east Antrim since these limited opening stations were closed;

  (2) whether he will discuss with the new Chief Constable as a matter of priority the impact of closure of limited opening stations in east Antrim.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: The Chief Constable tells me that no limited opening police stations have been closed in East Antrim. There were however three police posts closed in the area—Craigyhill (Larne), Sunnylands (Carrickfergus) and Knockfergus

  41
  (Greenisland). Since their closure in November 1988 the number of reports received for these areas which required some form of police action was 529, 346 and 169, respectively. The deployment of police resources is an operational matter for the judgment of the Chief Constable in which I do not propose to intervene.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there has been any change in levels of crime reported in each of the areas formerly covered by limited opening Royal Ulster Constabulary stations in east

  Craigyhill

  Sunnylands

  Knockfergus

  Period

  burglary

  theft

  burglary

  theft

  burglary

  theft

  26 November 1986 to 28 April 1987

  20

  7

  33

  27

  71

  67

  26 November 1987 to 28 April 1988

  20

  13

  28

  15

  56

  45

  26 November 1988 to 28 April 1989

  25

  7

  19

  17

  45

  58

  It is considered too early to reach a judgment as to the overall trend in the level of crime in these areas since the closure of the police posts.

  Telephone System
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the Department of Economic Development's plans to upgrade the telephone system in Northern Ireland; what role is envisaged for Mecury Communications in this; and what measures his Department plans to ensure competition.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  Plans to upgrade telecommunications systems in the United Kingdom are normally a matter for the telecommunications operators to make in the light of commercial considerations and any relevant obligations in their operating licences. The Telecommunications Act 1984 has already established the framework in which competing companies operate. We have no plans to change the present framework of telecommunications competition in Northern Ireland.

  Exceptionally, Northern Ireland qualifies for support under the European Community STAR programme, under which the European Commission made funding available for the economic development of certain less-favoured regions. I understand the Department of Economic Development discussed the STAR programme with both British Telecom and Mercury and subsequently selected BT to provide the infrastructure funded under the programme.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Misuse
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the ministerial group on alcohol misuse.

  Mr. Hurd
  The group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has made good progress. A report of action taken during the group's first year is published today. This gives an account of work in progress and takes a forward look at issues to be considered in the coming months.42
  Antrim since they were closed; and if he will publish details of available statistics for a comparable period in the two years prior to closure.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: The total number of reported burglaries and thefts in the areas formerly covered by police posts (not limited opening stations) in Craigyhill (Larne), Sunnylands (Carrickfergus) and Knockfergus (Greenisland), which were closed in November 1988 in comparable periods over the last three years was as follows:

  Crime Prevention
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of his Department's budget is currently being devoted to crime prevention.

  Mr. Hurd
  Expenditure on crime prevention is met from Class XI, Vote 3, Home Office administration, immigration and police support services, England and Wales. In the current year, 2·8 per cent. of the total provision for this Vote is devoted to crime prevention.

  Vote Tracing
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received following the recent local elections with regard to the possibility of vote tracing.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the county council elections on 4 May we have received five letters from hon. Members forwarding correspondence from constituents and two letters from members of the public on the procedure whereby a voter's electoral registration number is written on the ballot paper counterfoil when he or she votes.

  Passport Checks (Airports)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give reasons for the abolition of channels designated for British passport holders at airports for passengers returning to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) on 27 April 1989 at column 637.

  Crime Prevention (Surrey)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage crime prevention in Surrey.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our strategy for crime prevention applies to all parts of England and Wales. Police manpower and resources have been substantially
  43
  increased, Crime Concern was launched with Government support in May 1988 to stimulate, support and develop local crime prevention activity and the largest ever national crime prevention publicity campaign was launched last year.

  My right hon. Friend approved a further 10 police posts for the force from 1 April bringing the authorised establishment up to 1,649, and I understand there are now 389 watch schemes covering approximately 20,000 households throughout Surrey, together with nine panels and four junior panels. The Surrey constabulary is one of 10 south east forces involved, with Home Office support, in an ambitious scheme "Secured By Design" which aims to encourage the construction industry to incorporate security measures as standard in new homes; the scheme will be launched on 7 June.

  Prison Officers (Relocation)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial assistance is given to officers who are relocated in the prison system since the transfer grant for members of the prison service was stopped in 1984.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Established prison officers qualify for financial assistance in accordance with the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code unless they are transferred at their own request. This covers, for example, the cost of a preliminary visit to search for new accommodation, night subsistence and lodging allowance, legal expenses of house purchase and sale, reimbursement of interest charges on bridging finance, interest free advance of salary for house purchase, removal and storage expenses, additional housing costs allowance and transfer grant.

  This financial assistance is not generally available to civil servants including prison officers when taking up their first appointment.

  Asylum
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to set up a major independent review of Home Office policy and practice with regard to asylum seekers.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which date he received notification from the independent adjudicator that he had acted wrongly in relation to the cases of five Tamils, Mr. S. Sivakumaran, Mr. N. Vathanan, Mr. V. Rasalingam. Mr. V. Skandarajah and Mr. N. Vilvarajah, who had applied for asylum in the United Kingdom; on what date an application was made by Her Majesty's Government to the immigration appeal tribunal to hear an appeal against the adjudication; and on what date an application was made to the High Court for a judicial review of the tribunal's refusal to hear the appeal.

  Mr. Renton
  On 13 March 1989 an adjudicator upheld appeals against refusal of leave to enter in these five cases. My right hon. Friend sought leave to appeal to the tribunal on 22 March but on 19 April the tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to consider this appeal because of a clerical error in the service of the papers. On 12 May 44
  my right hon. Friend sought leave to move for judicial review of the tribunal's decision and leave was granted on 17 May.

  Youth Custody
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the regime in youth custody institutions, and on any representations thereon which he has received.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Youth custody centres and detention centres were replaced by young offender institutions when the new unified custodial sentence was introduced last October. Revised guidance on regimes for young offenders was issued then, emphasising the need to prepare young offenders for their return to the community, and recognising the importance for juveniles and short-sentenced young adults of participating from the outset in brisk, modular regimes built on experience gained in detention and youth custody centres.

  In general, the guidance was well received and regimes for the new sentence are working well. Representations have been received about one or two establishments which have experienced some difficulties and every effort is being made to resolve these problems.

  Popplewell Report
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recommendations of the Popplewell report which bear on the responsibilities of his Department have not been implemented; what were those recommendations; and, in each case, what are the reasons they have not been acted upon.

  Mr. John Patten
  Four recommendations of the final report of the Popplewell inquiry which bear on the responsibility of my right hon. Friend have not been wholly implemented.

  Recommendation 9(i) and (iii): as set out in the consultative document published in June 1986 the Government took the view that as safety certificates are instruments of continuing control it would not be appropriate to renew them annually or for local authorities to have powers to revoke them. The Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 provides for offences for a breach of any term or condition in a safety certificate and gives a separate power to local authorities to prohibit or restrict the admission of spectators to any part of a sports ground if there is judged to be a serious risk to their safety.

  Recommendation 11: the Government considered that it would be wrong to provide a power of search which went further than existing statutory powers based on reasonable suspicion. A club may refuse admission to its ground to persons unwilling to be searched.

  Recommendation 12: section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 provides an offence of disorderly conduct which is applicable in all public places, with the qualification that someone within hearing or sight of the conduct in question is likely to be caused alarm, distress or harassment. The Government is not persuaded that this qualification should be dispensed with.

  Recommendation 13: section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 has recently been re-enacted in the Public Order Act 1986 and is supplemented by the wide general powers of

  45
  arrest in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Government are not convinced that it is necessary to broaden these provisions further.

  Police (Video Surveillance Equipment)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the use by police forces in the United Kingdom of video surveillance equipment in the community as a means of crime detection and prevention.

  Mr. Hurd
  The use of surveillance equipment is a matter for the operational judgment of the police acting in accordance with guidelines issued by the Home Office on 19 December 1984.

  Turkish Nationals
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to impose a visa requirement on Turkish nationals who wish to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  I will shortly lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the immigration rules which will include provisions requiring Turkish nationals to obtain visas before travelling to the United Kingdom. The necessary written notice of one month under the 1960 agreement for the abolition of visas (Cmnd. 1043) was given to the Turkish Government on 23 May. The new visa regime will come into effect on 23 June.

  As part of the increasingly close co-operation between the member states of the European Community on immigration matters EC interior Ministers have for some time been discussing a proposal that visa requirements should be harmonised, and in this context that Turkish nationals should have to obtain visas to enter any European Community country. Most member states already require visas of Turkish nationals. Operational reasons now make it necessary for us to do the same.

  For many years, the proportion of Turkish nationals arriving in the United Kingdom who were refused admission and removed has been growing. Between 1985 and 1988 it rose from less than 1·5 per cent. to 3 per cent. The number of Turkish nationals against whom action was started for breaches of the immigration law increased from 136 in 1985 to 401 in 1988. A growing number of
  46
  Turks have claimed asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom. Whereas there were only about 60 such applications in 1987, during May alone this year there were more than 1,500. We are observing the meticulous procedures for examining each application which are necessary under the 1951 United Nations convention, and they necessarily take time. Many of those who have been interviewed are young men who have admitted to making their claim because of employment difficulties in Turkey. During May 106 applicants for asylum withdrew their applications and returned to Turkey.

  These developments have placed strains on the immigration control, creating long delays on occasion and inconvenience for the main body of passengers. We have no wish to detain more Turkish asylum applicants than is necessary. But it is often not possible to grant temporary admission, where those involved have no connections in the United Kingdom, have been unable to support or accommodate themselves without help, and may be tempted to abscond. The accommodation which we have for detaining immigrants is being fully used, but because of the large numbers we have also had to use prisons in the south-west. We are grateful to the churches and other organisations and individuals who have undertaken to provide emergency shelter and food for those who can properly be granted temporary admission. We have made it clear that we will consider reimbursing specific costs which community groups have incurred. My officials are also in contact with the British Refugee Council about the establishment of a short-term hostel in Tower Hamlets.

  It will be several months before the cases of those who have already arrived can be processed. All claims to asylum by Turkish nationals will continue to be carefully considered. Priority is being given to interviewing those in detention.

  Unless we take action now the situation is likely to deteriorate through the summer. That is why we have decided to impose a visa requirement on Turkish nationals who wish to enter the United Kingdom. The new visa regime will inevitably take a little time to settle down but the introduction of a visa requirement should benefit all bona fide travellers including business visitors who will be less likely to encounter delays on arrival in this country. Regular visitors to this country will be eligible for multiple-entry visas.

  Passports
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what emergency action he intends to take for those who require full passports; and if he will issue guidance for those requiring group passports.

  Mr. Hurd
  Delays which had been occurring in some areas during the peak season have been made worse by the recent industrial action in the passport offices. I very much regret the inconvenience that this has caused and will continue to cause to the public.

  Following a ballot held by the Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA), 84 out of 295 staff in the Liverpool office came out on indefinite strike on 30 May. Following ballots at all other offices, members of the CPSA staged a one-day sympathy strike on 2 June in favour of the Liverpool action, when a total of 219 failed to report for work. A ballot held by the National Union of Civil and Public Servants (NUCPS) obtained no majority for a sympathy strike and, as a result, there has so far been no official action by NUCPS members.

  All passport offices have remained open and counter services are being maintained, with priority being given to urgent cases. I am asking my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to contact certain other Governments to see whether, in the special circumstances in which we find ourselves, they would consider accepting expired British passports or (where they do not do so already) British visitor passports (BVPs).

  Travellers should be given the best possible advice and I am urgently considering ways of improving this. Those with an urgent need to travel in western Europe may apply for a BVP to any main post office in England, Scotland or Wales. BVPs are now available on Mondays to Fridays, and on Saturday mornings. Where a standard passport has been applied for in good time and has not been processed, BVP fees will be refunded on application. For countries where a BVP is not acceptable, travellers who have an urgent requirement (including for group passports) are advised to call in person at the most convenient passport office, where every effort will be made to ensure that a suitable travel document is provided.

  We shall seek to bring this dispute to a satisfactory end. Management and unions are meeting tomorrow and I hope that they will be able urgently to identify means of resolving the dispute.

  The unions' principal demand is for an increase of 381 staff on the permanent complement of 1,000. The demand for passports is partly seasonal. Demand rises in the new year, reaches its peak in early summer and falls away in the autumn. It makes sense to deal with the busy period partly by employing temporary staff and using overtime. At present, for example, a total of 1,420 staff are employed. The unions are not asking for any increase in this total but that the permanent proportion be increased.

  It is common ground that there have been changes in the pattern of demand. There is now a smaller difference between the peaks and the troughs. We therefore looked again at the case for a higher proportion of permanent staff. The National Audit Office has recently pointed out that it is not acceptable to staff troughs relatively more favourably than peaks. Nor would it be sensible to pre-empt the findings of the staffing review which both sides have already agreed should be undertaken once we
  48
  know of the effects of the present computerisation programme so far implemented only in Glasgow and Liverpool.

  But as a result of this examination, the Home Office concluded that the present justifiable maximum addition to the permanent complement was 158, subject to the impending staffing review. We began to recruit these extra permanent staff some weeks ago and propose to complete the process by the end of July.

  We have always been ready to provide in total—whether permanent or temporary—as many staff as can be justified by the workload and accommodated in the offices concerned. But we would not be justified in employing on a permanent basis staff who would have little or nothing to do during the slack period in the autumn and early winter.

  We have begun the computerisation of offices with the new passport. This must be the right long term solution. There have been teething problems with the introduction of computerisation in Glasgow and Liverpool, but we must see these through with the help of the staff.

  We intend to give the passport office the status of an executive agency, and are discussing the timing and details of the change. We believe that this will free the energies of staff and management to give better service to the public.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current delay in(a) acknowledging receipt of applications to renew passports, (b) acknowledging receipt of applications for new passports, (c) issuing renewed passports and (d) issuing new passports in respect of the Newport passport office; and what specific advice he has given applicants by way of newspaper advertisements as to the lead-time for the two classes of applications.

  Mr. Renton
  Straightforward non-urgent postal applications of all types are being processed at the Newport passport office within a maximum of 46 working days. Urgent applications are given priority and are processed in accordance with travellers' requirements. Applications are not normally acknowledged. Information about current delay times is frequently given in response to enquiries from the news media, and in the recorded telephone message facility for callers to the Newport office, which is extensively used and updated weekly.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider appointing major sub-post offices as agents for the issue of British visitors passports; what size of local population would be suitable for such an appointment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The issuing of British visitors passports is generally limited to the 1500 Crown post offices for reasons of security and economy. By agreement with the passport department, the facility is being retained by those Crown offices which are regraded to sub-office status under the Post Office's current restructuring plans, but we would not wish to extend this arrangement to other sub-offices.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to deal with the inadequacies of the telephone system and inquiry service at the Liverpool passport office.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the Liverpool passport office telephone inquiry service.
  49
  Mr. Renton
  The Liverpool passport office has a 24 exchange line switchboard. A recorded message facility offering an additional 26 telephone lines was installed in April, and further improvements are planned which will route incoming calls directly to the inquiry section. Efforts are being made to reduce the backlog of passport applications which is the reason for most of the telephone enquiries received, but the situation has been adversely affected by the current industrial action at Liverpool.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passport applications are awaiting process in(a) Liverpool and (b) London passport offices; what is the current average delay, in weeks; and what reasons there are for this backlog.

  Mr. Renton
  The information for the week ended 28 May is shown in the table:

  Passport office

  1Application

  2Maximum processing times

  Liverpool

  215,469

  15 weeks

  London

  22,622

  5 weeks

  1 Shows the estimated number of applications at the various stages of processing.

  2 Shows the maximum processing time in weeks (averages are not recorded).

  Normally most applications are processed well within the maximum period, with priority being given to urgent cases, but a sharp increase in demand early this year has led to an increase in processing times, and staff at Liverpool are also having to adapt to a new computerised system of passport issuing. Additional staff have been employed to help deal with the backlogs, and a system of free two-year extensions to the life of certain expired passports submitted for replacement has been introduced at Liverpool to help relieve the immediate problem there. The situation at Liverpool has recently been made more serious as a result of industrial action by some members of staff.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to process passport applications at(a) Liverpool and (b) Glasgow; and what he expects the position to be by 1990.

  Mr. Renton
  Passport applications are processed according to the applicant's travel requirements, with priority being given to urgent cases. As a result, processing times in a given period vary considerably, and averages are not recorded.

  The current maximum processing time for straightforward non-urgent postal applications at the Liverpool Passport Office is 73 working days, and at Glasgow 50 working days. Most applications are processed well within these maximum periods.

  Processing time should be reduced next year when the new computer system is fully established, and staff have become fully conversant with its operation.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate loss of revenue to be incurred as a result of his decision to allow a two-year extension to passports without charge.

  Mr. Renton
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the special arrangement at the Liverpool passport office announced by my right hon. Friend on 11 May at column 978.
  50
  We estimate that the measure will cost in the region of £1·3 million in the current financial year. Since, however, the great majority of the applications concerned are likely to be renewed on or before expiry of the two year extension period, the overall loss in passport fee receipts is likely to be small.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since the introduction of the guidelines on the use of equipment in police surveillance operations authorisation to use electronic surveillance listening and visual devices in each of the provincial police forces has been given by officers other than the chief officer.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer to my reply to my hon. Friend's questions on 26 May at columns 756–7.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what control he exercises over the Metropolitan police use of electronic surveillance listening and visual devices other than that exercised by the force inspectorate.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer to my reply to my hon. Friend's questions on 26 May at columns 756–7.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Vietnamese refugees there are currently in Hong Kong; how many he estimates will apply to settle in the United Kingdom; on what criteria their applications will be judged; and how many it is proposed to admit.

  Mr. Renton
  On 25 May, there were 14,200 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong. A further 19,243 Vietnamese were awaiting examination of their claim for asylum. It had been decided that 1,410 did not qualify for refugee status.

  On 23 February 1989 the Government confirmed its intention to admit a further 1,000 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong for settlement in the United Kingdom. The 1,000 will include relatives of Vietnamese already here and others with the potential quickly to become self-sufficient in the United Kingdom, together with some who have been in the camps for a long time and have not been accepted elsewhere.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Vietnamese refugees have had their travel documents confiscated for using those documents to travel to Vietnam.

  Mr. Renton
  Refugee status is accorded to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country. Although withdrawal of status is not automatic, travel to that country may put into question a continuing claim to refugee status and eligibility for refugeee travel documents. Following visits to Vietnam, 39 refugee travel documents have been impounded on return. So far, seven holders have been required to surrender their documents and decisions about the remainder will be made shortly, after careful consideration of the individual circumstances. In all cases, the persons concerned retain indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. It would be open to them to apply for discretionary travel documents.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will indicate the reason for the delay in processing visa applications by his Department; what he proposes to do about it; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on which date those applications for visas to enter the United Kingdom now being completed were submitted to his Department;

  (3) what is the average length of time taken to decide visa applications made by non United Kingdom nationals.

  Mr. Renton
  The reasons for the time taken to complete visa applications and the steps in train or already taken to reduce unnecessary delay were explained in my reply of 23 March to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) at column 809 in respect of all entry clearance applications.

  The way in which visa applications are allocated within the immigration department means that it is not possible to give a common date on which those applications now being completed were first referred to the department. Visa applications are dealt with according to, first, their perceived priority and, second, the date on which the application was first received within the department.

  Information about the average length of time taken to decide visa applications is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Remand (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce time limits on periods of remand imposed on young people by magistrates in the Leeds area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Custody time limits were introduced in West Yorkshire on 1 June. They apply to all those of whatever age remanded in prison department custody.

  Prison Service (Recruits)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new recruits to the prison service resign in the first 12 months of service due to unacceptable postings, according to the latest available figures.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Between 3 May 1988 and 30 April 1989, 73 basic grade prison officers resigned from the prison service within 12 months of joining. Information about their reasons for doing so is not available.

  Incest
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to decriminalise incest between brothers and sisters aged over 21 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  No.

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to improve working conditions for administrative staff in prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Proposals to improve working conditions for staff in existing establishments are 52
  considered on an individual basis according to the needs of the establishment and competing demands on the building programme. The improved provision which is to be made for administrative staff in new training prisons is described in the prison design brief which was published in March, 1989. Copies have been placed in the Library. Work is in hand on the adaptation of the brief to the requirements of local, female and young offender establishments.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many administrative staff are employed in Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 1 May, there were 1,942 members of the administrative group (including part-time staff) employed in prison service out-stations.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the use and cost effectiveness of agency staff in the hospital wing of Her Majesty's prison, Leicester.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Nurses employed by agencies have been used at Leicester prison from time to time to meet short-term needs. The director of prison medical services considers this to be a medically and financially acceptable means of filling temporary gaps in health care services.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the introduction of female prison officers at Her Majesty's prison, Leicester.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Four female officers have now been posted to Leicester. In the governor's view they have settled in well and are making a useful contribution to the work of the establishment.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why certain petitions from Her Majesty's prison, Leicester to his Department have not been acknowledged, and others have remained unanswered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All petitions addressed to the Secretary of State received from prisoners at Leicester and which were handed in prior to 2 April have either been acknowledged or a reply has been sent. All petitions received since that date have been acknowledged.

  As a local prison, Leicester has a rapid turnover of inmates. Most of the men whose petitions were recorded as outstanding in the Leicester petitions register have been transferred, and replies have been sent to their current establishment. Arrangements are being made to bring Leicester's records up to date.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to end the overcrowding of Her Majesty's prison, Leicester.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's prison, Leicester, in common with other overcrowded local prisons, will benefit from the delivery of substantial numbers of places under the prison building programme. The greatest measure of relief will be provided by the opening of a new local prison at Milton Keynes in 1992.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are taken to put non-smoking prisoners in cells with other non-smokers if they so wish at Her Majesty's prison, Leicester.
  53
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Arrangements are made, as far as is practicable, to meet requests from inmates who ask to be located with other non-smokers in circumstances where they are required to share a cell with others.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to increase the availability of workshops for prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Leicester.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to increase the number of workshop places at Leicester but efforts are continuing to ensure the full utilisation of existing places.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why modernisation of the kitchen at Her Majesty's prison, Leicester is behind schedule.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A new kitchen was to have been provided at Her Majesty's prison Leicester by late 1994. Design work on this scheme has however recently been suspended, as part of an effort to focus resources on schemes in the prison building programme which are either under way, or where work has to start on site in the next two financial years.

  Alcoholic Prisoners
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what help has been given to alcoholic prisoners since the pre-release scheme was abolished.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am not aware of the pre-release scheme to which the hon. Member refers.

  The number of pre-release courses, which will often include advice on the dangers of alcohol abuse, is increasing steadily. It has long been the prison department's policy to seek to educate prisoners about these dangers. In addition, there is now a branch of Alcoholics Anonymous within most adult establishments, and prisoners nearing the end of their sentence can be put in touch with the local Alcoholics Anonymous group near their home address should they wish to take advantage of the counselling service provided.

  Eames Report
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available the Eames report into suicides in Armley prison, Leeds, to the prison officers' representatives on the Whitley council negotiating body.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No, but the trade union side on the departmental Whitley council has been made aware of its main conclusions and recommendations.

  Police Vehicles
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has plans to streamline police vehicle fleet management as set out in the third police paper "A Report by the Audit Commission".

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is for individual chief officers and their police authorities to determine how best to manage their vehicle fleets. I understand that forces are now reviewing their arrangements in the light of the Audit Commission report. Her Majesty's inspectorate of 54
  constabulary will be examining these arrangements in the course of their annual inspection. The Home Office intends to issue guidance to forces on best practice.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Disaster and Refugee Units
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff have been employed in each year since 1979 by the disaster and refugee units of the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Disaster unit1

  Refugee unit2

  1980

  4·0

  —

  1981

  3·0

  —

  1982

  3·0

  —

  1983

  3·0

  —

  1984

  2·5

  2·5

  1985

  2·5

  2·5

  1986

  2·5

  2·5

  1987

  2·5

  2·5

  1988

  2·5

  2·5

  1989

  2·5

  2·5

  1 Temporary additional staff are assigned to the disaster unit during major and prolonged disasters.

  2 The refugee unit was set up in 1984.

  The total number of permanent posts in the disaster and refugee units will shortly increase from five to seven.

  Disaster Relief
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place between the Overseas Development Administration and non-Government agencies concerned with arrangements for disaster relief since the time of the Armenian earthquake; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Regular meetings, some of which I chair, are held between the Overseas Development Administration and those non-Government organisations concerned with providing disaster and refugee relief. I am planning a review of disaster relief arrangements with non-Government organisations before the summer.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the progress that has been made by the United Nations disaster relief organisation in drawing up a register of the assistance available by donor nations to countries facing major disasters.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  United Nations disaster relief organisation is in the process of drawing up such a register and I understand is in contact with donor Governments.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to provide further assistance to the United Nations disaster relief organisation in order to improve its effectiveness.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have already provided financial assistance to United Nations disaster relief organisation for its important disaster prevention and preparedness
  55
  activities. I am planning to increase this assistance in the context of the forthcoming United Nations international decade for natural disaster reduction.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to assist developing countries in the development of renewable energy sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Over the last decade the Overseas Development Administration has promoted the use of renewable energy sources in developing countries through funding research and development for a wide range of technologies, including efficient wood-fuelled cooking stoves, efficient charcoal manufacture, biogas production, windpumps, microhydro turbines, solar crop drying and the use of waste materials for process heating.

  Aid funds have also been used to implement projects aimed at utilising geothermal energy, wind-powered electricity generation, and solar-powered water pumping. They have also been used to help finance the manufacture of efficient wood-fuelled stoves, as well as for building and rehabilitating substantial hydropower installations.

  We continue to seek ways of helping to carry forward developments in renewable energy which carry real promise of being effective.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to assist developing countries with measures for energy conservation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Through our aid programmes we have been assisting developing countries for some years with measures aimed at improving the efficiency of their energy sectors. The provision of British equipment, skills and training has been financed to improve generating efficiency, reduce transmission losses and improve distribution networks. In conjunction with other donors we have also encouraged Governments to adopt appropriate pricing policies for power to ensure that it is used effectively and economically. Against the background of our environmental concerns, we shall continue to give high priority to this kind of assistance in the energy sector.

  Mozambique
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current situation relating to the development by the Commonwealth Development Corporation of schemes in Mozambique; and if he will give details of proposals relating to their financing.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I authorised the Commonwealth Development Corporation to operate in Mozambique in November 1987.

  The CDC is discussing a draft operating conditions agreement with the Government of the People's Republic of Mozambique which we hope will be signed shortly. The CDC are investigating a number of investment possibilities including projects for the development of tea, sugar, forestry, cashew nuts and citrus.

  Fiji
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of grant aid has been allocated to Fiji by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will list it by category.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The latest provisional figure for our bilateral aid to Fiji is £1,595,000 in 1988. £39,000 of this total represents expenditure under grant financial aid agreed in 1981. About £1,555,000 was spent on technical co-operation (the provision of expert manpower and advice from the United Kingdom and the training of Fijians). I envisage that technical co-operation will continue at around this level. These figures exclude expenditure by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made towards establishing the Civil Service college as an executive agency.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to announce that the Civil Service college will today become an executive agency of the Cabinet Office (OMCS). The college is the chief central provider of training for civil servants. It charges for its courses and government departments are free to go elsewhere. Agency status will add to the managerial freedoms which the college has enjoyed for some time and will enable it to compete more effectively for its business. It will provide a sharper focus for the college's operations and a clearer relationship with my Department. I have set demanding targets against which its performance will be measured in future. Copies of the framework document are being placed in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Staff (Relocation)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to relocate staff of his Department to Runcorn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Employment Department, in common with other Departments, has been conducting a study into the potential for moving posts out of London and the south east. The study is nearing completion and we expect to announce its conclusions and our decisions to the House shortly. At present 27 per cent. of Employment Department head office staff are located in Runcorn.

  Strikes (Statistics)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to the number of strike days lost per 100,000 workers for each year since 1975 in(a) the United- Kingdom, (b) France, (c) West Germany, (d) Italy, (e) the EEC average, (f) the United States of America, (g) Sweden and (h) Japan.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for the years 1977 to 1986 is given in the article "International
  57
  comparisons of industrial stoppages for 1986" published in the Employment Gazette, June 1988, page 335, a copy of which is in the Library. This article also gives a description of the different coverage of the statistics in the various countries. For the data for 1987, the latest available, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 4 May 1989, Official Report, column 241. Figures for 1975 and 1976 are given in the article "International comparisons of industrial stoppages for 1984" published in the Employment Gazette, July 1986, page 266, a copy of which is in the Library.

  EEC average figures would not be meaningful because of the wide variation in the coverage of the industrial dispute figures in member states.

  International Agreements (ILO)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all the occasions on which Britain has been found guilty of breaking international agreements by the United Nations International Labour Organisation.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government are convinced that United Kingdom law and practice fully conform with ILO obligations.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the chairman of the construction industry training board in early April.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am holding a series of meetings with the chairman of the construction industry training board to discuss plans for training within the construction industry as envisaged in the White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s" (cmd 540).

  I have asked the chairman to put forward proposals agreed by the industry for future training arrangements.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in the last year for which figures are available how many people in the Chesterfield area have had their unemployment benefit payment reduced; by what average amount; and for what average period.

  Mr. Lee
  No figures are kept on the number of people who have their unemployment benefit payments reduced.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by his Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  No electronic surveillance listening devices are used by the Department of Employment or by any organisations or agency acting on its behalf.

  Disablement Advisory Service
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people the Disablement Advisory Service employs; and if he will make a statement.
  58
  Mr. Lee
  There were 190 Disablement Advisory Service (DAS) staff in post on 31 March 1989. I believe that the Disablement Advisory Service performs an invaluable role in encouraging and assisting employers to apply good policies and practices in the employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the Disablement Advisory Service is resourced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Disablement Advisory Service consists of specially trained employment service staff. They are organised in 68 teams, covering all parts of the country, and can be contacted through local jobcentres. For very large employing organisations, there is a special head office advisory service, the major organisations development unit, based in London, but available nationwide.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Disablement Advisory Service distributes leaflets concerning its activities to general practitioners' surgeries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  No. The Disablement Advisory Service's main role is to help employers to adopt and implement good policies and practices in the employment of people with disabilities. It is not directed towards general practitioners or their patients. A new booklet, "Job Hunting for People with Disabilities", appropriate to disabled jobseekers and their advisers, will be issued shortly for distribution to local points of contact, including surgeries, at disablement resettlement officers' discretion.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if there are any plans to expand the Disablement Advisory Service's activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no current plans to expand the Disablement Advisory Service's (DAS) activities. However, DAS activities are being considered as part of my Department's internal review of its policies and services for people with disabilities.

  Non-EEC Workers
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take action against the restaurant chain Garfunkels over the employment of illegal non-EEC workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Action has been taken in the past to deal with illegal entrants and other immigration offenders employed by the restaurant chain Garfunkels. However, there was insufficient evidence available to act against their employer. I will, of course, consider any such evidence which my hon. Friend may wish to provide.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs have been created since May 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job gains and job losses. Between June 1979 (there are no estimates for May) and December 1988, the latest date for which figures are
  59
  available, there was a net increase of 1,148,000 in the work force in employment in the United Kingdom. The figures have been adjusted for the effects of seasonal variation. The work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, Her Majesty's forces and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has of the average number of people employed by companies with turnovers of(a) less than £250,000, (b) £250,000 to £500,000, (c) £500,000 to £1,000,000, (d) £1,000,000 to £2,000,000, (e) £2,000,000 to £5,000,000 and (f) £5,000,000 and above.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is not available. The Department's employment estimates are taken from short term surveys and censuses of employment which do not relate employee numbers to company turnover.

  Employees in employment1 in the Leeds metropolitan district2

  Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 1980

  Division of SIC

  September 1981

  September 1984

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  (thousand)

  (thousand)

  Manufacturing industries of which:

  2·4

  85·5

  100·0

  71·8

  100·0

  Male part-time

  —

  0·9

  1·0

  0·7

  1·0

  Female part-time

  —

  5·5

  6·5

  4·3

  6·0

  Service industries of which:

  6·9

  187·4

  100·0

  196·1

  100·0

  Male part-time

  —

  7·7

  4·1

  9·4

  4·8

  Female part-time

  —

  47·0

  25·1

  49·8

  25·4

  Non-manufacturing industries

  0,1, 5·9

  216·3

  —

  223·0

  —

  All industries and services

  0·9

  301·7

  —

  294·7

  —

  1 Excludes the self·employed and members of Her Majesty's forces; employees in temporary employment are included but are not separately identified; part·time workers are defined as those working not more than 30 hours a week.

  2 The district is defined in terms of ward boundaries as at 1981.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were self-employed in the Leeds metropolitan district for each of the years 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is available only for Census Day in April 1981. In the census returns 24,601 people living in the Leeds district said that they were self-employed.

  Unemployment rates for persons of working age2 by highest qualification and region

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19883

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Northern region

  'A' level or higher

  10·1

  1—

  10·9

  10·3

  11·3

  9·3

  10·0

  8·9

  9·1

  1—

  9·1

  1—

  'O' level or equivalent

  15·7

  12·8

  17·8

  10·8

  14·2

  11·3

  16·2

  13·1

  11·8

  12·5

  1—

  10·9

  Below 'O' level

  24·3

  15·4

  19·6

  28·1

  23·8

  18·2

  20·5

  1—

  28·7

  16·6

  16·9

  16·2

  No qualification

  22·5

  11·5

  24·6

  15·0

  21·5

  13·2

  23·9

  13·3

  21·1

  11·9

  26·0

  14·5

  Yorks and Humberside region

  'A' level or higher

  8·3

  7·2

  7·1

  9·0

  7·0

  7·9

  7·5

  6·7

  6·8

  5·1

  6·1

  8·5

  'O' level or equivalent

  11·4

  11·3

  13·4

  11·5

  14·0

  11·0

  11·9

  9·4

  9·4

  10·3

  9·2

  8·1

  Below 'O' level

  18·9

  14·2

  17·3

  15·3

  15·1

  13·6

  17·8

  16·8

  15·6

  11·0

  14·6

  1—

  No qualification

  18·8

  10·9

  17·4

  11·8

  19·9

  12·2

  18·2

  11·4

  21·5

  11·8

  20·4

  11·8

  East Midlands region

  `A' level or higher

  5·4

  1—

  4·8

  1—

  5·7

  6·9

  6·1

  7·6

  6·0

  6·1

  3·6

  6·3

  'O' level or equivalent

  1—

  10·2

  11·2

  9·8

  1—

  6·4

  10·1

  8·9

  9·6

  7·9

  1—

  9·2

  Below 'O' level

  12·9

  1—

  15·7

  13·5

  16·1

  13·0

  12·7

  14·6

  9·9

  11·2

  11·3

  1—

  60
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many(a) part-time and (b) temporary employees there were in the Leeds metropolitan district for each of the years 1979 to 1989 shown by (i) gender and (ii) as a percentage of all employees (1) in manufacturing industries (2) in the service sector;

  (2) how many employees were in employment in manufacturing in the Leeds metropolitan district in each of the years 1979 to 1989;

  (3) how many manufacturing and non-manufacturing employees there were in employment in the Leeds metropolitan district for each of the years 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  The available employee estimates for the area are from censuses of employment taken in September 1981 and September 1984 and are given in the table. More up-to-date employee estimates for local areas, from the September 1987 census of employment, will become available later this year.

  This information is available in the Library.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the unemployment rates by highest qualification held for men and women in each of the standard regions and for Wales for each of the years 1983 to 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: Estimates from labour force surveys are as shown in the following table:
  61

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  19883

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  No qualification

  12·3

  10·1

  15·0

  10·0

  15·5

  11·9

  13·5

  9·8

  17·2

  13·5

  13·1

  8·4

  East Anglia region

  'A' level or higher

  6·3

  1—

  4·6

  1—

  4·5

  1—

  4·5

  1—

  6·2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  'O' level or equivalent

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Below 'O' level

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—]

  No qualification

  12·4

  8·2

  9·3

  7·8

  10·4

  11·8

  10·3

  9·6

  8·7

  10·9

  6·2

  7·0

  South East region

  'A' level or higher

  5·3

  6·9

  4·8

  6·9

  4·6

  6·9

  5·1

  7·1

  5·2

  6·0

  3·2

  4·5

  'O' level or equivalent

  8·5

  7·4

  7·0

  7·9

  6·8

  6·7

  7·3

  7·8

  6·0

  7·5

  5·0

  5·2

  Below 'O' level

  11·9

  11·4

  11·4

  10·3

  11·8

  11·3

  11·2

  9·9

  8·4

  8·5

  6·6

  7·8

  No qualification

  12·4

  9·6

  12·6

  10·0

  12·3

  9·9

  13·5

  9·5

  13·1

  8·9

  10·7

  8·2

  Greater London

  'A' level or higher

  6·6

  6·8

  5·9

  7·7

  5·3

  7·0

  7·1

  8·1

  6·6

  6·0

  4·5

  5·6

  'O' level or equivalent

  10·0

  8·3

  8·1

  9·3

  8·3

  8·0

  9·2

  8·1

  8·6

  8·0

  6·8

  5·3

  Below 'O' level

  11·9

  11·9

  12·4

  13·0

  14·1

  13·3

  14·4

  11·3

  9·6

  7·5

  8·2

  9·6

  No qualification

  14·3

  10·0

  14·7

  12·3

  14·8

  12·4

  16·5

  11·4

  16·7

  9·6

  15·4

  10·7

  South West region

  'A' level or higher

  6·0

  6·7

  5·2

  8·7

  5·0

  6·7

  5·7

  7·6

  4·6

  6·8

  3·8

  3·9

  'O' level or equivalent

  9·1

  8·0

  8·6

  9·1

  1

  9·2

  8·8

  7·8

  6·2

  9·9

  5·6

  7·1

  Below 'O' level

  10·9

  13·6

  14·2

  11·4

  12·4

  9·2

  10·3

  11·3

  8·7

  9·9

  6·8

  8·1

  No qualification

  12·1

  8·9

  11·2

  9·2

  10·4

  8·7

  12·9

  9·1

  14·1

  10·1

  9·2

  9·0

  West Midlands region

  'A' level or higher

  7·7

  7·4

  7·9

  9·7

  6·5

  8·2

  6·0

  7·3

  6·6

  5·2

  4·9

  4·1

  'O' level or equivalent

  13·0

  12·3

  15·2

  12·4

  13·5

  12·8

  13·3

  10·4

  15·3

  12·9

  7·2

  8·2

  Below '0' level

  17·7

  17·1

  19·4

  17·8

  21·5

  15·3

  15·6

  16·1

  14·7

  13·2

  10·8

  9·8

  No qualification

  21·2

  13·2

  20·4

  11·7

  21·6

  13·9

  18·5

  11·8

  20·5

  11·4

  13·3

  9·8

  North West region

  'A' level or higher

  8·7

  7·9

  9·7

  9·1

  8·6

  6·9

  8·0

  8·0

  7·8

  7·4

  6·9

  6·8

  'O' level or equivalent

  13·8

  11·1

  12·4

  10·5

  12·5

  11·1

  11·7

  12·3

  9·6

  11·0

  8·3

  8·0

  Below 'O' level

  19·8

  14·2

  20·6

  17·5

  18·2

  15·4

  21·5

  18·1

  18·8

  14·4

  14·1

  14·4

  No qualification

  21·7

  13·6

  23·9

  14·0

  21·7

  13·7

  22·9

  12·4

  21·1

  15·1

  22·2

  12·9

  Wales

  'A' level or higher

  10·1

  1

  9·3

  10·9

  8·7

  1

  8·4

  8·5

  8·4

  8·2

  7·8

  1

  'O' level or equivalent

  15·4

  11·6

  1

  12·4

  1

  1

  13·2

  13·0

  11·2

  10·5

  1

  10·2

  Below 'O' level

  16·6

  1

  1

  1

  19·1

  1

  28·0

  21·8

  17·6

  1

  17·0

  1

  No qualification

  20·9

  13·3

  20·7

  14·5

  20·2

  14·9

  21·9

  13·5

  21·8

  13·7

  17·1

  14·5

  1 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

  2 Men aged 16–64, women aged 16–59.

  3 Preliminary results (1988 only).

  Source: Labour Force Surveys.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his reply of 23 May,Official Report, columns 506–7, he will provide the references to any published evidence from employers in wages council trades that they are more ready to offer young people employment; if he will place in the Library copies of any written but unpublished evidence available to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The evidence consists of comments made by certain organisations in their responses to the consultation document on wages councils and in other correspondence. It is not the Department's practice to ascribe particular comments to individuals or organisations.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consider introducing a gardening and caretaking scheme under employment training.
  62
  Mr. Nicholls
  Training in both gardening and caretaking occupations is already offered under employment training where there is a demand for such training from long-term unemployed people and where there are suitable employment opportunities following training.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sprint Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the spending of the EEC Sprint programme was spent in Britain in each year of the programme's existence; and if he will list the projects and agencies supported by Sprint in Britain since the programme started.

  Mr. Forth
  The detailed breakdown of funding requested by the hon. Gentleman is unavailable. However, during the 1984–88 Sprint pilot phase, it is possible to attribute at least 2·3 million ecu to United Kingdom beneficiaries out of Sprint funding of 18·63 million ecu.
  63
  Excluding funding of 2·73 million ecu for EC groups and associations (eg EuroTechAlert) the United Kingdom proportion of the Sprint budget amounted to 14·5 per cent.

  The list indicates that 80 United Kingdom contractors received support for 123 projects under Sprint since the programme began.

  Contractors supported under Sprint

  Contractors

  Projects

  Smida Herts

  2

  Mackintosh Beds

  1

  British Executive Overseas London

  1

  Newtech Clwyd

  3

  Worldtech Ventures Ltd. London

  1

  I.C.O.M Yorks

  2

  Scottish Development Agency Lanarks

  7

  New Products-EC Gloucester

  3

  Nesda Aberdeen

  1

  Europa Industrial Products Berks

  2

  Wintcch Cardiff

  2

  Shekell-Mooring Herts

  2

  Shekell Mooring International Licensing Herts

  1

  North of England Development Council Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1

  Kelvington International London

  1

  C.T.A. (Cosgrove) Berks

  2

  QMC-Wolfson Fire and Materials CNT London

  1

  PIRA Surrey

  1

  University of Bath Bath

  1

  Macro Group London

  1

  Mari Advanced Microelectronics Ltd. Gateshead

  1

  Institute of Physics London

  2

  P.T.R.C. London

  1

  64

  Contractors

  Projects

  Scottish Development and Industry Edinburgh

  1

  BSRIA Berkshire

  3

  Licensing Executives Society (Britain and Ireland) London

  1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne University (Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies) Tyne and Wear

  2

  Peat Marwick McLintock London

  1

  United Kingdom Science Park Association Birmingham

  1

  BHRA, The Fluid Engineering Centre Bedford

  1

  City University London London

  1

  SATRA Footwear Technology Centre Northamptonshire

  1

  Institution of Mechanical Engineers London

  1

  Glasgow Business School Glasgow

  1

  C.T.A. Economic and Export Analysis Berkshire

  1

  Technology Exchange (Ex GLEB) London

  1

  The Technology Exchange Bedford

  1

  P.E. Consulting Ltd. Surrey

  3

  Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale Yorkshire

  4

  Purvis and Company St. Andrews

  1

  Life Business Development Agency Lanarkshire

  1

  Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh

  3

  Lanarkshire Industrial Field Executive Ltd. Lanarkshire

  1

  Worldtech Ventures Ltd. London

  1

  Scottish Enterprise Foundation Stirling

  1

  Pax Technology Transfer London

  3

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells (UK) London

  1

  Capital Partners International London

  1

  Technology International Exchange London

  2

  65

  Contractors

  Projects

  March Technologies Limited Manchester

  2

  Sallingbury Casey Ltd. London

  1

  European Technology Entrepreneurs Centre Belfast

  2

  TRC-Education and Research Services Ltd London

  1

  University of Surrey Surrey

  1

  Design Council London

  2

  TWA-The Welding Institute Cambridge

  2

  Building Research Establishment Hertfordshire

  1

  Production Engineering Research Association Leicestershire

  2

  Trada-Timber Research and Development Association Buckinghamshire

  4

  Satra Footwear Technology Centre Northamptonshire

  3

  Warrington Fire Research Centre Cheshire

  2

  B.C.S.A. London

  1

  Shirley Institute Manchester

  2

  BCIRA Birmingham

  1

  B.C.R. Ltd Staffordshire

  1

  Paint Research Association Middlesex

  2

  Campden Food Preservation Research Association Wiltshire

  1

  British Food Manufacturing Industries Research Association Surrey

  1

  ERA Technology Surrey

  2

  British Textile Technology Group Leeds

  1

  Leatherhead Food Research Association Surrey

  2

  British Maritime Technology Ltd Tyne and Wear

  1

  Technology Policy Unit Aston Birmingham

  1

  NRDC London

  1

  66

  Contractors

  Projects

  Sheffield City Council Sheffield

  2

  Cleveland County Council Cleveland

  1

  PE Inbucon West Midlands

  1

  Mr. McMullan Antrim

  2

  Total

  123

  Innovation and Technology Transfer
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will name the British members of the consultative committee on innovation and technology transfer; and what proportion of the total EEC membership they comprise.

  Mr. Forth
  There are two members of my Department on the committee for innovation and technology transfer out of a total membership of twenty four. They are Mr. J. Niblett and Mr. M. Porter.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to his reply of 27 April,Official Report, columns 614–5, concerning gross output of finished manufactures and imports of semi-manufactures, intermediate products and basic materials, whether he will provide comparable figures for clothing; and if he will add figures for 1973 and for exports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available figures for gross output of finished manufactures for clothing follow. A split of trade into semi-manufactures, intermediate finished manufactures and basic materials is not appropriate as clothing is a finished manufacture for consumer use.

  Gross output of finished manufactures: clothing1 1985 prices

  £million

  1970

  5,023

  1973

  5,627

  1979

  5,844

  1988

  5,654

  1 Finished clothing is defined as clothing, hats and gloves, hosiery and other weft knitted goods (SIC[80] group 453 and activity 4,363).

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the top 20 trading countries for the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the following tables:

  United Kingdom top 20 trading partners

  1979

  1. Germany

  2. United States of America

  3. France

  4. Netherlands

  5. Switzerland

  6. Belgium/Luxembourg

  67

  7. Ireland

  8. Italy

  9. Sweden

  10. Norway

  11. Japan

  12. Denmark

  13. Canada

  14. Saudi Arabia

  15. Spain

  16. Australia

  17. South Africa

  18. Soviet Union

  19. Finland

  20. Hong Kong

  1980

  1. Germany

  2. United States of America

  3. France

  4. Netherlands

  5. Switzerland

  6. Belgium/Luxembourg

  7. Ireland

  8. Italy

  9. Sweden

  10. Saudi Arabia

  11. Japan

  12. Norway

  13. Canada

  14. Denmark

  15. South Africa

  16. Spain

  17. Hong Kong

  18. Nigeria

  19. Finland

  20. Australia

  1981

  1. United States of America

  2. Germany

  3. Netherlands

  4. France

  5. Ireland

  6. Belgium/Luxembourg

  7. Italy

  8. Switzerland

  9. Sweden

  10. Saudi Arabia

  11. Norway

  12. Japan

  13. Canada

  14. Denmark

  15. South Africa

  16. Spain

  17. Nigeria

  18. Hong Kong

  19. Finland

  20. Australia

  1982

  1. United States of America

  2. Germany

  3. Netherlands

  4. France

  5. Belgium/Luxembourg

  6. Ireland

  7. Italy

  8. Sweden

  9. Japan

  10. Norway

  11. Switzerland

  12. Denmark

  13. Canada

  14. South Africa

  15. Spain

  16. Hong Kong

  17. Nigeria

  18. Austrialia

  19. Finland

  20. Saudi Arabia

  68
  1983

  1. United States of America

  2. Germany

  3. France

  4. Netherlands

  5. Belgium/Luxembourg

  6. Italy

  7. Ireland

  8. Sweden

  9. Japan

  10. Norway

  11. Switzerland

  12. Denmark

  13. Canada

  14. Spain

  15. South Africa

  16. Hong Kong

  17. Finland

  18. Australia

  19. Saudi Arabia

  20. Nigeria

  1984

  1. United States of America

  2. Germany

  3. France

  4. Netherlands

  5. Belgium/Luxembourg

  6. Italy

  7. Ireland

  8. Sweden

  9. Norway

  10. Japan

  11. Switzerland

  12. Spain

  13. Denmark

  14. Canada

  15. Hong Kong

  16. South Africa

  17. Finland

  18. Australia

  19. Soviet Union

  20. Saudi Arabia

  1985

  1. United States of America

  2. Germany

  3. France

  4. Netherlands

  5. Italy

  6. Belgium/Luxembourg

  7. Ireland

  8. Norway

  9. Sweden

  10. Japan

  11. Switzerland

  12. Spain

  13. Canada

  14. Denmark

  15. Hong Kong

  16. Australia

  17. Finland

  18. South Africa

  19. Nigeria

  20. India

  1986

  1. Germany

  2. United States of America

  3. France

  4. Netherlands

  5. Belgium/Luxembourg

  6. Italy

  7. Ireland

  8. Japan

  9. Sweden

  10. Switzerland

  11. Norway

  12. Spain

  69

  13. Canada

  14. Denmark

  15. Hong Kong

  16. Finland

  17. Australia

  18. South Africa

  19. Saudi Arabia

  20. India

  1987

  1. Germany

  2. United States of America

  3. France

  4. Netherlands

  5. Italy

  6. Belgium/Luxembourg

  7. Ireland

  8. Japan

  9. Sweden

  10. Switzerland

  11. Norway

  12. Spain

  13. Canada

  14. Denmark

  15. Hong Kong

  16. Finland

  17. Saudi Arabia

  18. Australia

  19. India

  20. South Africa

  1988

  1. Germany

  2. United States of America

  3. France

  4. Netherlands

  5. Italy

  6. Belgium/Luxembourg

  7. Japan

  8. Ireland

  9. Switzerland

  10. Sweden

  11. Spain

  12. Norway

  13. Canada

  14. Denmark

  15. Hong Kong

  16. Finland

  17. Australia

  18. South Africa

  19. Portugal

  20. Saudi Arabia

  Note: In descending order, based on value of exports plus imports.

  Source: OECD Series A.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the value of(a) United Kingdom exports to Iraq, and (b) United Kingdom imports from Iraq in the last year for which information is available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The provisional figures for 1988 are(a) United Kingdom exports to Iraq £412·1 million; (b) United Kingdom imports from Iraq £43·4 million.

  Textile Products
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the United Kingdom's trade deficit relates to trade in textile products; and if he will make a statement on the extent of import penetration in this sector of the economy.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The crude deficit on trade in textiles in 1987 was £1,816·3 million compared with an overall crude deficit of £24,177·5 million. Comparable figures for 1988 70
  show crude deficits of £1,921·4 million and £24,936·7 million. Import penetration for textiles in 1987—the latest year for which figures are available—was 48 per cent.

  Manufacturing Investment (North-East)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the level of manufacturing investment in the north-east for each of the last 10 years, giving 1979 as 100.

  Mr. Atkins
  No regional breakdown of manufacturing investment for 1988 is yet available. The required information for the period 1979 to 1987 is shown in the following table:

  Manufacturing investment1 in the North-East2, at, constant prices, as a percentage of 1979 level

  North-East

  1979

  100

  1980

  66

  1981

  42

  1982

  41

  1983

  41

  1984

  47

  1985

  59

  1986

  50

  1987

  53

  1 Excluding expenditure on assets leased from the financial industries.

  2 The North-East is not a standard region of the United Kingdom but can be defined as the North less Cumbria. It comprises Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear.

  Source: Annual census of production.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by his Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department's radiocommunications division regularly monitors the radio spectrum to establish patterns of use, to trace radio interference and to assist in the management of radio services, in keeping with its licensing function under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. Commercially available radio receivers are used for monitoring purposes.

  EC (Footwear Imports)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to initiate talks at European Community level between non-European Community producers and European Community members on the regulation of footwear imports to the European Community; and if he will seek to establish an agreement for footwear similar to the multi-fibre arrangement in textiles and clothing.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom already operates a range of quantitative restrictions on imports of footwear from Eastern Europe and China. EC member states will need to consider the findings of the Commission's Community-wide investigation into imports of footwear from Taiwan and South Korea before deciding what further action might be appropriate. We have asked the
  71
  Commission to look in particular at the effect of imports into the United Kingdom from Taiwan of women's made-to-order footwear.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to seek an early decision from the European Commission arising out of its investigations into the injury caused to the United Kingdom footwear industry by excessive imports from Korea and Taiwan.

  Mr. Clark
  I have written to Commissioner Andriessen seeking an early decision on the need for safeguard action on imports into the United Kingdom of women's made-to-order footwear from Taiwan. The Commission is anxious, however, not to pre-judge the outcome of the Community-wide investigation into imports of footwear from South Korea and Taiwan. Commissioner Andriessen has assured me that the Commission will conclude their investigation as quickly as possible. I will of course consider what action is appropriate once the Commission's recommendations are known.

  Post Office Users National Council
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received the latest report of the Post Office Users National Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I receive all Post Office Users National Council reports. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to its latest joint announcement with Royal Mail Letters in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 25 May (Official Report, column 651).

  Institute of Logistics and Distribution Management
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received a copy of the most recent report of the Institute of Logistics and Distribution Management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I believe the question refers to the report prepared by the Institute of Logistics and Distribution Management on "The Market for Express Goods Services between the UK and Europe, North America and the Far East". The British Overseas Trade Board decided that there were good reasons to examine in detail aspects of the fast growing express freight market for manufactured goods and so funded this study. My Department is considering the report and views on it from interested parties but has not yet reached conclusions on it or on follow-up action.

  Postal Monopoly (LSE Report)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received a copy of the report on the postal monopoly, published in September 1988 by the London School of Economics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has received the report on the Post Office's letter monopoly by Saul Estrin and David de Meza of the London School of Economics. We keep all the options for change in the letter monopoly under review, including those put forward in the LSE report.

  Post Office Counters
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will announce the timetable for the privatisation of Post Office Counters.

  Mr. Forth
  We have no present plans for the sale of Post Office Counters Ltd. The Post Office has, however, announced plans for regrading 250 Crown post offices to sub-offices, which will mean increased private investment in the post office network. Sub-offices already make up most of the counters network.

  Post Office Parcels
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will announce the timetable for the privatisation of Post Office Parcels.

  Mr. Forth
  We have no present plans for privatisation of Royal Mail Parcels.

  Post Office Board
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the salaries and review dates of each member of the Post Office Board, with the date and length of his appointment.

  Mr. Forth
  The Post Office annual report and accounts lists the names of the members of the Post Office Board and the years of their appointment, and also gives the number in different ranges of remuneration. Their remuneration is revised with effect from 1 April of each year. Appointments are made for periods of up to five years.

  ECPT (EC Paper)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a copy of the paper submitted to the European Commission by members of the CEPT, as mentioned in his oral reply to the hon. Member for Battersea of 17 May,Official Report, column 313.

  Mr. Forth
  No, CEPT working papers are restricted to the membership. The rules of the CEPT do not allow such documents to be disseminated and I am therefore unable to place them in the Library.

  Post Office
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent the Post Office subsidises its competitive services by its monopoly services.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no subsidy from the Post Office's monopoly services to its competitive services.

  Remail
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he has taken to support international express carriers regarding Remail.

  Mr. Forth
  None. I am, however, aware that the EC is investigating a complaint by courier services about postal administrations.

  Postal Service
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what aspects of the postal service have been investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in each year from 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  Since 1979 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has published four reports on aspects of the postal service. These were:

  1979 Inner London letter post.

  1984 The Post Office letter post service.

  1986 Post Office procurement activities.

  1988 Post Office counters services.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has submitted to the European Commission on European postal services from 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Courier Services (Anti-competitive Practices)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has submitted to the European Commission on the formal complaint made by private courier services about anti-competitive practices by postal administrations.

  Mr. Forth
  None. It is for the Post Office to reply to questions put to it by the European Commission.

  Letter Deliveries
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to how many letters and what percentage of letters, posted first class, fail to arrive the following delivery day.

  Mr. Forth
  The Post Office's new end to end monitoring system, which records results separately for each district by destination, shows that for 1988–89 the percentage of first class letters not delivered the day after posting varied widely between districts. The range was:

  per cent.

  Delivery within district of posting

  6–36

  Delivery to neighbouring districts

  8–41

  Delivery to distant districts (excluding Belfast)

  20–50

  The detailed figures for each district, which were published by the Post Office on 25 May, have been placed in the Libraries.

  Public and Private Postal Services Working Group
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when his Department last chaired a meeting of the public and private postal services working group; what was discussed; when it will next meet; and whether representatives of the Institute of Logistics and Distribution Management will attend.

  Mr. Forth
  The working group chaired by my Department to which I believe my hon. Friend refers is a technical working party of officials and representatives of the industries concerned with Her Majesty's Customs" treatment of express consignments. Its meetings are private and it would be inappropriate to publish details. The Institute of Logistics and Distribution Management is not represented.

  Postal Officials (New Zealand)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when his Department last met postal officials from New Zealand; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My officials last met postal representatives from New Zealand at the Executive Council meeting of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) in April of this year. A wide range of postal topics was disccussed between the representatives of about 40 postal administrations.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer to the Director-General of Fair Trading claims made in advertisements by RRR Ltd. that one of its products can regain crystal clear hearing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Advertisements for hearing aids are covered by specific provisions in the British code of advertising practice, which is administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. False statements in advertisements are covered by the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 enable the Director-General of Fair Trading to seek a court injunction to prevent the publication of a misleading advertisement, where other means of control have failed.

  I have no powers to intervene in the way in which the director-general performs his functions under the regulations. The hon. Member may wish to write to the Advertising Standards Authority or, if he prefers, to the Director-General of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to implement stricter regulations for the dispensing of hearing aids in the private sector to protect the consumer.

  Mr. Forth
  The Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), which the Government supports, would achieve stricter controls over the dispensing of hearing aids for the benefit of hearing-impaired consumers.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much worked and raw ivory has been exported to Dubai in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There has been no export of worked or raw ivory to Dubai in any of the last five years.

  Finished Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 27 April,Official Report, columns 615–16, concerning trade in finished manufactures with the United States of America, whether he will provide the correlation co-efficient between the change in the United States of America share of United Kingdom exports lagged by one year after the change in relative export unit values in United States dollars.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The correlation coefficient is negative with a value of 0·2.
  75
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby of 27 April,Official Report, columns 614–5, concerning gross output of finished manufactures and imports of semi-manufactures, intermediate products and basic materials, whether he will provide comparable figures for finished textiles, including man-made fibres with other fibres as basic materials; and if he will add figures for 1973 and for exports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available figures are given in the tables. Trade figures at 1985 prices are not available at the required level of detail. Current price data are shown instead.

  Exports and imports: textiles OTS basis, current prices

  1Semi-manufactures

  2Intermediate finished manufactures

  3Basic materials

  exports

  imports

  exports

  imports

  exports

  imports

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1970

  335·9

  217·5

  —

  —

  96·5

  183·7

  1973

  485·4

  431·5

  —

  —

  172·1

  322·2

  1979

  1,093·0

  1,413·4

  —

  —

  315·7

  475·5

  1988

  1,615·2

  2,965·5

  —

  —

  439·5

  688·4

  1 Semi-manufactured textiles are defined as division 65 of SITC less made-up articles (658) and floor coverings (659)

  2 Intermediate finished manufactures are not appropriate to textiles.

  3 Basic materials for textiles are defined as division 26 of SITC (textile fibres)

  Hand-held Video Cameras
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action the Government are taking concerning the European Commission's proposal to increase the tariff on compact hand-held video cameras from 4·9 per cent. to 14 per cent.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Neither the United Kingdom nor any other member state, supported the Commission proposal. It has therefore been withdrawn.

  Tariffs
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether(a) the United Kingdom or (b) the EEC maintain tariffs on any products where there are no idigenous industries to protect.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom applies the common Customs tariff of the European Community. This includes duties on goods not produced in the Community.

  Iron and Steel Imports
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications the Department of Trade and Industry import licensing board received from traders wishing to exclude existing contracts from the import prohibition on iron and steel from South Africa set out in NTI2097; how many applications were approved; what was the total value of approved applications; what were the dates of entry into such contracts; and how long they will run.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 26 May 1989]: Records are kept of licences issued, not of applications. Since 1 January 1987, 377 licences have been issued. Allowing for licences returned unused, the total quantity licensed was 66,187 tonnes. Details for 1986 could be provided only at disproportionate expense.
  76

  Gross output of finished manufactures: textiles1 1985 prices

  £ million

  1970

  2—

  1973

  2,039

  1979

  1,833

  1988

  2,011

  1 Finished textiles is defined as carpets and other textile floor coverings, household and made-up textiles (SIC[80] groups 438 and 455).

  2 Not available.

  Information relating to contract terms is provided in confidence by applicants.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what quantity and value of iron and steel goods in each of the commodity categories described in Notice to Importers 2097 and 2180 were imported in each month (i) from all sources and (ii) from South Africa, in the period since September 1986; and what was South Africa's ranking among all sources.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 26 May 1989]: The information requested is not readily available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Pension Age
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations with the European Commission and other member states on the state pension age.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The proposal for a Council directive "completing the implementation of equal treatment for men and women in statutory and occupational social security schemes" was first tabled in October 1987. Since March 1989 there have been three working group meetings of officials from member states in Brussels and the draft directive was also discussed at the informal meeting of Ministers at Toledo on 28 April which I attended. While progress has been made there still remain a number of outstanding problems. Negotiations are continuing to see how these might best be resolved so as to ensure unanimous agreement by member states.

  Deaf-blind People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many deaf-blind people are currently in
  77
  receipt of the mobility allowance; how many have appealed after an initial refusal; and how many have succeeded on appeal.

  (2) what is the estimated cost of extending the mobility allowance to (a) all deaf-blind people, and (b) deaf-blind people between the age of five and 75 years.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that we do not collect information about the number of deaf-blind people who have claimed or who arc in receipt of mobility allowance. In view of this and the lack of information about the number of deaf-blind people in the population, it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the cost of making the allowance available specifically for deaf-blind people.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report the community care grants expenditure in respect of the Department of Social Security offices in Smethwick and West Bromwich for the year 1988–89; what percentage these figures are of the total amount of community care grants allocations for those offices in Smethwick and West Bromwich for the year 1988–89; and what arrangements are made so far as the disposal of the surplus expenditure for 1988–89 is concerned.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The 1988–89 outturn data for individual local offices will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Local office allocations are made for a financial year. Unspent balances at the end of a financial year are not available for expenditure in the following year.

  Income Support Claimants
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of income support claimants for each Department of Social Security office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest information available, for 28 February 1989, has been placed in the Library. The source of the information, which is provisional and subject to amendment, is the quarterly count of cases in action which may include some cases not actually in receipt of benefit.

  Community Charge
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the period of time in which people can apply for a poll tax rebate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no plans to extend the 56-day limit. The regulations provide that people who claimed community charge benefit within 56 days of 1 April 1989, or who claim within 56 days of receiving their first community charge demand notice if this is later, will have their claim treated as if it had been made on 1 April 1989 provided that they were liable for the charge from that date and the appropriate authority is satisfied that any delay in issuing the demand notice was not caused by the claimant's attempts to evade payment of the charge. The 56-day period was arrived at following discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It has been extensively publicised. It represents a real concession to the 78
  concerns expressed and is a significant departure from the principle that benefit cannot normally be awarded until it has been claimed. The 56 days allow reasonable time for the making of claims, even where people may not have claimed benefit before.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish(a) his latest estimates of how many people in England and Wales will be entitled to community charge rebate, and (b) the expected level of take-up.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that no estimates are available of the numbers of people who might be entitled to community charge rebate if they were to claim it, so it is not possible to derive an estimated level of take up. Estimates of the numbers of people expected to receive it were given in my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) on 19 October 1988 at columns 897–8. Revised estimates will be available in due course.

  AIDS
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reply he has sent to the letter from ACT-UP delivered to him on 18 May; what action he is taking to ensure that all people with AIDS or ARC are able to afford the food recommended to them by their doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  A copy of my reply to the letter from ACT-UP which was handed to their representative on 22 May has been forwarded to the right hon. Member. We will be giving careful consideration to the implications for benefits of the results of all the OPCS surveys. We welcome the views of interested groups such as ACT-UP on those results and their implications.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by his Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  "Our Business is Service"
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of publishing the leaflet entitled "Our Business is Service".

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 26 May at columns 749–50.

  Budgeting Loans and Community Care Grants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) budgeting loans and (b) community care grants were awarded to each of the 15 client groups defined by his Department for (i) the East Midlands region and (ii) each of the offices serving the Nottingham, North constituency.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the revised estimate for family credit take-up by caseload included the estimated number of families entitled to family credit due to the freeze in the child benefit rate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest estimate relates to 1988 only. It is based on an examination of family expenditure survey returns for April to December 1988 and therefore has regard to the child benefit rates applicable at that time.

  Benefits
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) families and (b) children are in receipt of means tested benefits broken down into family credit, income support and housing benefit as a result of the freeze in child benefit, taking into account the new estimates of the take-up of family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 May 1989]: Estimates are only available on the caseload assumptions in the Public Expenditure White Paper (Cm. 615). They are based on combined 1985 and 1986 family expenditure survey data uprated to reflect the position in 1989–90. Estimates of this kind are particularly uncertain because of small sample sizes. Bearing these factors in mind, it is possible that an extra 15,000 families (with perhaps 30,000 children) are now claiming family credit because child benefit was not uprated in April 1989. The number of extra families receiving income support and housing benefit are likely to have increased by about 5,000 (with perhaps 10,000 children).

ENVIRONMENT

  Archaeological Investigations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce statutory controls to require developers to undertake archaeological investigations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Many developers already contribute voluntarily to archaeological investigations before development. Where a site is scheduled, archaeological evaluations may be required before an application for scheduled monument consent can be determined, or an opportunity for excavation may be required as a condition of consent. Local planning authorities may in some circumstances require further information about the archaeological implications of development proposals before they determine a planning application. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on 24 May at column 602 about our proposals to issue guidance on such matters.

  Water Undertakings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his reply of 27 April,Official Report, column 522, concerning installing water treatment plant to meet EEC standards, whether he will publish in the Official Report the sum of the initial projections together with his view of what constitutes a reasonable return capital on capital invested in water undertakings.
  80
  Mr. Howard
  Projections of costs are still under discussion with individual water undertakers. We are also still considering the rate of return appropriate for water and sewerage undertakers.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether lists of historic buildings have yet been fully compiled.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The national resurvey of listed buildings, which began in 1970, is virtually complete. Three areas have still to be resurveyed: Isle of Lundy; the parishes of Bracebridge Heath, Canwick, Heighinton, Washingborough in Lincolnshire; and the parish of Southwell in Nottinghamshire, and six areas are in the process of being resurveyed. A further 50 lists are being prepared for publication. To date a total of 1,757 resurvey lists have been published. Some of the lists produced during the early years of the resurvey have been found to be deficient in various respects. English Heritage will be reviewing them over the next few years.

  Commercial Premises
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of the alteration of valuation lists for commercial premises, he intends to make regulations revising the basis of calculation for compensation to tenants under part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes.

  Planning
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the matter of B1 planning consents in general following the recent High Court case, London borough of Camdenv v. Department of the Environment, and on local authorities' powers to attach conditions to such consents in particular.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 11 May at column 521. I do not believe the recent High Court judgment is inconsistent with the Government's policy in relation to the "business" use class.

  South Yorkshire Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal (Members)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by name and nominating body the current serving members of the South Yorkshire valuation and community charge tribunal.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following people are all members of the South Yorkshire valuation and community charge tribunal.

  Members appointed by Barnsley metropolitan borough council:
  Mrs. A. Bailey; Mrs. N. Collett; Councillor T. Dixon; Mr. P. Doyle; Councillor Mrs. C. Evans; Councillor B. G. Goodard; Mr. M. Harper; Councillor Mrs. M. Harrison; Mr. S. Hepworth JP; Mr. F. Hollins; Mrs. N. Hollins JP; Mr. J. Marsden; Mr. D. Roberts; Mrs. P. Smith; Mr. A. Tucker; Mr. A. Vodden.
  81
  Members appointed by Doncaster metropolitan borough council:
  Mr. M. Burns; Councillor B. Cassley JP; Mr. M. Collins; Mr. H. Dutton; Councillor G. Gallimore JP; Mr. H. Gladders; Mr. A. Greening; Mr. C. Griggs; Councillor A. Grimson JP; Councillor K. S. Judge; Councillor A. Lanaghan; Mr. M. McCoy; Councillor G. M. McDade JP; Miss E. Plumb; Councillor C. W. Verrill; Mr. C. Wedd.

  Members appointed by Rotherham metropolitan borough council:
  Mr. D. W. Dale; Mr. A. M. Davies JP; Mr. J. P. Dolbon; Mrs. I. Farren; Mrs. A. Jarvis; Mr. A. Kiddy; Mr. R. H. Noble; Mr. R. S. Russell; Councillor Miss M. Sides; Mr. P. Thirlwall; Mr. V. M. Thornes; Councillor B. Walker; Councillor S. Walker; Councillor G. Whelbourn; Mr. B. Williams; Councillor W. Winder.

  Members appointed by Sheffield metropolitan district council:
  Mr. F. W. Adams; Mrs. M. Burrow; Councillor J. A. Butler; Mr. J. M. Davey; Mr. J. G. Marshall; Mr. M. Nicholson; Mr. C. Oates; Mrs. D. Podlesny; Mrs. G. L. Randell; Councillor Mrs. E. Smith; Mr. M. E. Smith; Mr. G. A. Winter; Mr. P. E. Wood.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites in the three counties of Yorkshire, and in Humberside which are licensed to dispose of(a) radioactive waste, (b) special waste, and (c) clinical waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the Department's "List of premises in England and Wales currently authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to dispose of radioactive waste" which includes premises in the three counties of Yorkshire and Humberside. A copy of this list is in the Library of the House. The numbers of sites in these counties licensed for the disposal of other wastes are listed below. Information on the types of waste licensed for disposal is held by the appropriate waste disposal authority, which is required to maintain a public register.

  Number

  North Yorkshire

  118

  South Yorkshire

  257

  West Yorkshire

  443

  Humberside

  154

  Steel-framed Houses
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those constituencies where he has information that there are steel-framed houses.

  Mr. Trippier
  Locations of steel-framed houses built in England, and reported to the Building Research Establishment. are listed in its 1987 report "Steel-framed and steel-clad houses: inspection and assessment". A copy is in the Library.

  Capital Accounting
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to implement the proposals contained in the consultative document on capital accounting requiring local authorities to maintain a comprehensive inventory of assets.
  82
  Mr. Gummer
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the consultative implementation manual, "Capital Accounting in Local Authorities—The Way Forward", published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. This document is the responsibility of the bodies by which it was published and its implementation is a matter for the local authorities to whom its recommendations are addressed. I am sympathetic to the general approach set out in the manual.

  Popplewell Report
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many recommendations of the Popplewell report which bear on the responsibilities of his Department have not been implemented; what were those recommendations; and, in each case, what are the reasons they have not been acted upon.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None. In December 1986, the Home Office issued a revised version of the guide to safety at sports grounds. Chapter 11 of the document—"Fire Safety"—dealt, among other fire-related issues, with recommendation 10 of the Popplewell report. The technical content of the building regulations continues to be under review. Later this year, the Department will issue a consultation document covering all aspects of the building regulations as they relate to fire.

  The Government's proposals for a football membership scheme (recommendation 15 of the Popplewell report) are contained in the Football Spectators Bill.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times between 1985 and 1987 water sources in England and Wales were shown to exceed maximum admissible concentrations of pollutants.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in the period from May 1988 to May 1989 maximum admissible concentration levels have been exceeded in water supplies for Leicestershire.

  Mr. Howard
  I understand that water supplies for Leicestershire regularly complied with the EC drinking water directive in the period May 1988 to May 1989 except for water supplies serving a small part of north-west Leicestershire, which marginally exceeded the standard for magnesium. There were occasional breaches of the pesticide standard set in the EC directive. However, all were within levels considered acceptable by medical advisers.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on proposals to privatise certain functions of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have given to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) today.

  Riso Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what Ministers or officials of his Department will(a) be present, (b) present papers and (c) be involved in round-table discussion sessions at the Riso international conference on environmental models; emissions and consequences, to be held on 22 to 25 May in Denmark.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  One of the Department's principal scientific contractors, an expert on environment modelling, attended parts of the Riso meeting. He gave a paper and participated in discussions.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was his Department's participation at 84
  the conference on protecting the ozone layer held in Finland on 2 May; what papers were presented by it; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the conference.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended the first meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol in Helsinki. Copies of the United Kingdom national statement, and of the message from the London "Saving the Ozone Layer" conference, which he presented to the meeting, are available in the Library. The European Community's call, made in response to a United Kingdom initiative, for CFCs to be eliminated by the end of the century, was endorsed by the Governments attending the Helsinki meeting. We shall work towards amendment of the protocol to this effect at next year's second meeting of the parties in London.

  "Health for All By The Year 2000"
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will ensure that rate support grant reflects the call for local authorities to invest in programmes to achieve the targets set in the "Health For All By The Year 2000" programme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for local authorities to decide to what extent the targets outlined in the WHO "Health For All By The Year 2000" programme should be reflected in their plans and priorities. Rate support grant is unhypothecated and provides support for local authority spending on all services.

  Corby New Town
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the total sum realised by sale of assets by the Commission for the New Towns in Corby for each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows:

  Sums realised by the Commission for the New Towns for the sale of assets

  Year

  £ million

  Corby

  1979–80

  6·43

  —

  1980–81

  29·61

  ·952

  1981–82

  61·85

  ·580

  1982–83

  51·18

  5·840

  1983–84

  55·25

  2·517

  1984–85

  57·59

  1·506

  1985–86

  78·67

  1·826

  1986–87

  169·31

  4·464

  1987–88

  216·66

  10·564

  11988–89

  334·00

  17·414

  1,060·55

  45·663

  1 Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. Figures do not include sums realised by development corporations prior to wind-up.

  2. Figures are gross, before deduction of selling expenses.

  Air Quality
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will be introducing measures to protect public health based on the World Health Organisation air quality guidelines for Europe 1987;

  (2) whether his Department has assessed the World Health Organisation air quality guidelines for Europe 1987;

  (3) whether the Government intend to introduce air quality standards for particulates and tropospheric ozone based on the World Health Organisation air quality guidelines for Europe 1987;

  (4) whether the Government intend to introduce air quality standards for Britain for sodium dioxide and nitrous dioxide which are more stringent than EEC standards.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Warren Spring Laboratory published a report—LR650 (AP)—in January 1988 comparing the available United Kingdom air quality data with the World Health Organisation guide values. WHO emphasises that these are not limit values but rather targets for improved air quality, to be considered in the context of prevailing exposure and environmental, social, economic and cultural conditions.
  86
  We continue to keep air quality under review in relation to the WHO guidelines and other environmental information. At present we see no reason to set more stringent limits in the United Kingdom than are generally applicable in the EC for sulphur dioxide, particulates and nitrogen dioxide. Nor do we have plans to set a standard for tropospheric ozone.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the most recent figures on the levels of acidification in rainfall(a) in Warrington, (b) the north-west and (c) the average for Britain as a whole.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The data requested are provided for 1988 in the table. The United Kingdom average has been computed from 60 stations in the Department's acid rain network, the north-west average from seven stations and the Warrington value has been interpolated from nearby stations.

  Annual mean precipitation weighted acidity in rainfall

  Data region

  u eq H+/litre

  pH

  United Kingdom

  25

  4·6

  North-West

  31

  4·5

  Warrington

  33

  4·5

  Simplified Planning Zones
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for the establishment of simplified planning zones have been(a) received arid (b) approved in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Greater London.

  Mr. Chope
  The adoption of simplified planning zones is handled locally. At present, two simplified planning zones have been adopted in England, none in Wales arid none in Greater London.

  Ports (Rating)
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has completed his review of rating procedure for statutory and non-statutory ports; if he will publish the conclusions of the review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Discussions with representatives of the ports about rating are continuing and we shall be making proposals later in the year.

  Water Use
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any water use restrictions currently in operation.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to water authorities and water users during the current dry spell.

  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for action, including advising consumers, rests with the water undertakers. We are, however, monitoring water resources closely.

  Water Stocks
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what regions of the United Kingdom impounded water stocks are below average.

  Mr. Howard
  Only in the Southern water authority's area are some impounded water stocks below normal.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his plans for full implementation of recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee on the control and funding of housing associations, in its 16th report of Session 1985–86, HC 108.

  Mr. Trippier
  Action taken and in hand on the Committee's recommendations is described in the report No. 312 by the Comptroller and Auditor General "Department of the Environment: Housing Association Grant", published on 13 April 1989.

  Management and Maintenance
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest comparable information on the average level of spending on management and maintenance by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations, in (i) Greater London, (ii) metropolitan districts and (iii) non-metropolitan districts in England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest available study comparing the management costs of local authorities and housing associations is in section 2 of "The Nature and Effectiveness of Housing Management in England" produced by the Centre for Housing Research at the university of Glasgow. This distinguishes metropolitan authorities including London boroughs from non-metropolitan authorities and national or regional housing associations from local housing associations. Copies of the report, which was published earlier this year, are in the Library.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest estimates of the levels of expenditure on management and maintenance by local authorities that will take place in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Trippier
  I assume this is a reference to management and maintenance of local authority housing. This is a matter for the councils concerned.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by his Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Department does not possess or use any listening equipment for surveillance of its telephone network.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those newspapers contacted by his Department in connection with the Minister for Local Government's community charge articles.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his reply of 23 May to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, (Mr. Nellist)Official Report, column 488, he will list the newspapers to which more than 500 articles were sent.

  Mr. Gummer
  I will write to the hon. Members with this information.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have indicated that they will incorporate the whole or part of the contents of the leaflet, "The Community Charge: The So-Called Poll Tax: How It Will Work For You" in material they are to distribute; and if he will list them.

  Mr. John Gummer
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: The leaflet was not intended for incorporation into other information material although some local authorities have expressed an interest in using it in this way. However, it stands on its own as a concise, accurate and factual introduction to the community charge.

  Nene Washes Site
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions were attached to the offer of a grant by the Nature Conservancy Council to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for the purchase of 16·5 acres of lowland damp grassland within the Nene Washes site of special scientific interest near Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire to extend the existing Nene Washes Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserve.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  After careful consideration the NCC decided that no offer of grant should be made in this instance.

  Sewage Sludge (Dumping)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the blockade by the Greenpeace ship Moby Dick of the tanker Mancunium, due to be loaded with sewage sludge for dumping at sea, at the Slowhill Copse sewage works at Marchwood and about Her Majesty's Government's policy on the dumping of sewage sludge at sea.

  Mr. Howard
  On 23 May 1989, a vessel operated by Greenpeace UK Ltd. obstructed the departure of a vessel loaded with sewage sludge from Slowhill Copse sewage works of the Southern water authority for disposal at sea. Following an application to the High Court, an injunction was granted to the Southern water authority restraining Greenpeace from this or similar action.

  I deplore action of this sort which in this case could itself have caused significant environmental problems. At present the United Kingdom disposes at sea each year of about 30 per cent. of a total of 1·2 million dry tonnes of sewage sludge. The basis of our policy in this area, as for other wastes, is to select the best practicable environmental option for each waste stream.
  89
  In the case of sea disposal, dumping operations require approval from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland and a licence is granted only where it is clear that no practicable alternative on land is available and it can be shown that there is no risk to the marine environment.

  Community Charge (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment is he yet in receipt of information necessary to give the national community charge for the city of Nottingham for the year 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 9 May at column 386 and to the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 25 April at column 532.

  Severn Estuary
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for safeguarding the outstanding natural interest of the Severn estuary, in the light of current development pressures; whether he plans further designations and safeguards in the wider Severn estuary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Severn estuary has been notified by the Nature Conservancy Council as a site of special scientific interest under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This notification provides the site with legal protection from activities likely to harm its nature conservation interests and ensures that the views of the NCC are taken into account when development proposals affecting the site are being considered.

  Two parts of the estuary, Bridgewater Bay and the upper Severn have been designated as special protection areas for birds under the European Communities directive 79/409/EEC and/or as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention. The whole estuary has also been indentified by NCC as having the potential for designation under the directive and the convention but no formal case for further designations has yet been submitted.

  Classification as an SPA imposes stringent criteria, above and beyond those related to SSSI notification, that must be applied when development proposals are being considered; these criteria are set out in detail in DOE circular 27/87—"Nature Conservation". The circular makes it clear that, for planning purposes, potential SPAs should be treated in the same manner as formally designated sites.

  Beaches
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in the Official Report the names and locations of all United Kingdom beaches which in 1988 failed to comply with the EEC bathing water directive 76/160 for enteroviruses and salmonella;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report, all United Kingdom beaches which were tested in 1988 for compliance with the EEC bathing water directive 76/160 for enteroviruses and salmonella.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 May at column 265.
  90
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sources of pollution into the Bristol channel he can identify; and if he will set a target date of 1 January 1993 for the adjacent beaches to meet European Community bathing water standards.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: This information is not held centrally in the Department but information on consented discharges is available on the public registers held by water authorities. We are currently discussing with water authorities, programmes for improving bathing waters; however, individual schemes necessarily take up a number of years from initial feasibility studies to completion, and may involve major engineering work. Consequently, I am unable to set a target date of 1 January for all the waters along the Bristol channel to meet EC standards.

  North West Water (Land Development Officer)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the implications of the advertisement by North West Water for a senior management post for a land development officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The notice was an internal staff circular related to the making permanent of a temporary post concerned with disposal of surplus land. The disposal of surplus land by public bodies is well-established Government policy. I would expect the future water plc to pursue the disposal of surplus land. As I have recently announced, provision is being made through the Water Bill for the benefit of proceeds of land disposals to be shared between customers and shareholders.

  Housing Costs
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, in the Official Report, the permitted expenditure limits for house building, repair, renovation and maintenance and the actual expenditure, for each of the Somerset district councils, in the years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: It is for each local authority to decide how its resources should be targeted; the actual expenditure figures are as follows:

  Table 1

  Somerset—1986–87 outturn £'000

  New build (including land)

  Repair and maintenance

  Renovation

  Mendip

  2,218

  2,545

  2,926

  Sedgemoor

  2,114

  2,061

  1,263

  Taunton Deane

  822

  3,190

  1,893

  West Somerset

  806

  737

  443

  South Somerset

  2,046

  2,493

  1,424

  Table 2

  Somerset—1987–88 provisional outturn £'000

  New build (including land)

  Repair and maintenance

  Renovation

  Mendip

  1,005

  1,872

  1,435

  Sedgemoor

  1,682

  2,452

  2,066

  Taunton Deane

  718

  3,033

  2,079

  West Somerset

  894

  425

  492

  South Somerset

  2,065

  3,818

  1,377

  91

  Table 3

  Somerset—1988–89 estimated outturn £'000

  New build (including land)

  Repair and maintenance

  Renovation

  Mendip

  1,010

  3,004

  1,239

  Sedgemoor

  3,621

  4,078

  2,379

  Taunton Deane

  2,848

  4,742

  4,085

  West Somerset

  1,050

  650

  770

  South Somerset

  1,732

  4,571

  3,834

  Gipsies
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide comparative figures for the number of gipsy families known to be in England and Wales at present, five years and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: Accurate information on the numbers of gipsy families is not available. The numbers of gipsy caravans in England as recorded by the twice-yearly counts carried out by the Department for the periods in question were:

  Number

  January 1989

  11,321

  January 1984

  9,929

  January 1979

  8,358

  The Welsh Office has its own arrangements for monitoring numbers of gipsies in Wales.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to prevent trade in endangered species in the United Kingdom; and if he has any plans for new initiatives.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: The United Kingdom complies fully with the requirements of EC regulation 3626 which implements the convention on international trade in endangered species within the European Community. Our most recent initiative is to call for concerted European support for a total ban on trade in new ivory. We shall do this at the next Council meeting of Environment Ministers on 8 June.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what quantity of ivory from the African elephant is currently held or has recently been held at Heathrow airport awaiting retrospective import clearance; what information he has as to whether this ivory was obtained in breach of the convention on international trade on endangered species; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: I understand from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise that details of individual consignments cannot be released where Customs action is not yet completed.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he recently allowed the delivery to the United Kingdom of several tons of African elephant tusks originally obtained in contravention of the convention on international trade on endangered species.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: The Department has allowed no such delivery.
  92
  Under the convention on international trade in endangered species it is the Department's responsibility to issue import and export permits for ivory. We do so only with the agreement of the CITES secretariat ivory unit in Lausanne, Switzerland and when we are satisfied that the requirements of EC regulation 3226/82 have been met.

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to secure the sale of nationally owned nature reserves; which reserves may be sold during the next two years; and what evidence he has of public support for such disposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: The Nature Conservancy Council is reviewing policy for NNRs. In response to the council's preliminary report published on 3 May, the Government welcomed the suggestion of increased participation by the voluntary and private sectors in reserve ownership and management. We also recognised that there would be a need for some reserves to be held in the NCC's ownership, and assurances that the ownership and management of sites could only be transferred on condition that there continued to be adequate safeguards to ensure the conservation of their wildlife or geological interest. I understand that the council is planning to submit proposals later this year.

  The majority of national nature reserves are already owned and managed for conservation by private landowners or voluntary bodies.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, regarding storage of radioactive waste for which there is presently no disposal site available, whether it is Government policy that radioactive waste shall be stored at the site at which the waste is created in the case of Crown-exempt nuclear operators including the Ministry of Defence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waste should be safely stored in an appropriate place where it is created or elsewhere. This Department has no statutory control over the storage by Crown-exempt operators such as the Ministry of Defence. However, they have agreed to observe practices no less stringent than those subject to statutory control.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) regarding storage of radioactive waste for which there is presently no disposal site available, whether it is Government policy that radioactive waste shall be stored at the site at which the waste is created;

  (2) regarding storage of radioactive waste for which there is presently no disposal site available, whether Government policy allows for the transfer of radioactive waste from one storage facility to another;

  (3) what is the Government's policy on the storage of radioactive nuclear waste for which there is, at present, no disposal facility available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: The Government's policy is that wherever such waste is stored it must be safe. This may be at the site where it is created or elsewhere. The safe transport from one storage facility to another is not precluded.

  Tributyl Tin (Pollution)
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what rivers in England and Wales are known to have been polluted by the use of tributyl tin by boat owners.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 26 May 1989]: The main freshwater rivers affected have been those carrying large numbers of pleasure craft, which were treated with tributyl tin antifouling paints before the Government banned their sale and supply in 1987. We have direct evidence of contamination of the Rivers Bure, Yare, Great Ouse, Thames, Aire and Medway. It is too soon to detect the effect of the ban in reducing tributyl tin concentrations in rivers.

  Drought Forecasts
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest forecasts available to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 26 May 1989]: On latest information, areas at risk due to low levels of water resources are confined to limited parts of the south-east and east Devon. Elsewhere, resources are in a healthy state. We are monitoring the position closely.

  Rents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 386, to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) what steps he proposes to take to ensure that tenants outside the protection of the Rent Acts are not charged rents inclusive of rates after the introduction of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Gummer
  [holding answer 26 May 1989]: The Housing Act 1988 will apply to most tenancies entered into after 15 January 1989 and any rents determined by the rent assessment committee under that Act will be exclusive of rates. Any reductions in inclusive rents arising from the introduction of community charge should be settled on the basis of individual contracts.

  General Anaesthetic (Minors)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the occasions on which a parent or guardian of a minor does not need to sign the consent form for general anaesthetic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Parental consent to examination or treatment of a minor is not required in the following circumstances:

  1. Where the child has reached age 16;

  2. Where there is a medical emergency and parental consent is not obtainable;

  3. Where a child has sufficient understanding of the treatment proposed to give consent on his or her own behalf. (It will be a matter of medical judgment as to whether any particular child has sufficient understanding).

HEALTH

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific proposals is he preparing to tackle the problem of food poisoning in airline meals.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is the responsibility of the airlines and the airline caterers to ensure that their food does not cause food poisoning.

  Local authorities are responsible for the enforcement of the food legislation where applicable and this is currently under review.

  We are shortly to issue reviewed guidelines on cook-chill preparation and airline caterers using the cook-chill system should follow the recommendations.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning associated with untreated milk occurred in England and Wales in each of the years from 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases

  1983

  285

  1984

  406

  1985

  233

  1986

  347

  1987

  366

  Dentists
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received the report of Professor Dawid's study on measurement of the work load of dentists; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report, "Measurement of Dentists' Workload" by Professor A. P. Dawid, of the department of statistical science, University College, London, was commissioned jointly by the Department and the British Dental Association to advise on the principles on which the measurement of work load in the general dental services should be based. Officials from the Department and the association have studied the report and agree that it is a useful starting point for a programme of further work designed to achieve an agreed position on work load measurement for the purposes of the dental rates study group and the preparation of evidence for the doctors and dentists review body. Initial discussions on how to take this programme forward are already under way. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional costs have been incurred in the change in organisation from the Dental Estimates Board to the Dental Practice Board; and whether he will itemise the main headings of expenditure.

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been no costs associated with the change of name from the Dental Estimates Board to the Dental Practice Board.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions are currently being
  95
  undertaken with the object of improving emergency dental services; and when he anticipates being able to report progress;

  (2) what provision he intends to make to enable patients in the community dental service to have access to emergency dental services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Arrangements for the provision of local emergency dental services are a matter for the relevant family practitioner committee and any such services are also available to persons who have been treated by the community dental service. Discussions, with representatives of the dental profession, on the terms of a new contract for general dental practitioners will cover emergency treatment provision but we cannot say when we shall be able to report on the discussions.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in computerising the remuneration of general dental practitioners in England and Wales; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The translation of returns from dentists to the Dental Practice Board into schedules of payments for family practitioner committees to make to them is already fully computerised. A pilot trial to test the feasibility and value of electronic data transmission between dentists and the Dental Practice Board is currently in progress, involving 60 dentists in 26 practices in England and Wales. A full report on the trial is expected in July.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has held an internal inquiry into the late arrival of form FPN 472 relating to dental charges; and what redress is available through departmental machinery for the general dental practitioners in the event of subsequent under-remuneration.

  Mr. Freeman
  Family practitioner notice 472 advised dentists of changes in dental charges as from 1 April 1989. The department distributed the notice to family practitioner committees (FPCs) in time for them to deliver to dentists before the changes came into effect. In a very small number of cases there was a delay of a few days in the transmission of the notice from FPCs to dentists. There is no reason why this should lead to any under-remuneration.

  Abortions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultants and (b) nurses have taken a conscientious objection to abortion under section 4 of the Abortion Act 1967; and what have been the comparable figures each since 1968.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown by regional health authority of the total number of abortions performed in England and Wales under the Abortion Act 1967; in each region, how many of these abortions were performed to save the life of the mother; and what percentage the latter represents of the former.
  96
  Mr. Freeman
  The exact information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost; the nearest readily available information, covering the years 1970 to 1987, is shown in the table.

  Number of notifications of (a) total abortions, (b) abortions performed under grounds of 5 or 6 1of the 1967 Abortion Act, by area of usual residence, 2England and Wales 1970 to 1987.

  Area of usual residence

  A

  B

  Percentage B of A

  England and Wales

  2,137,120

  251

  0·012

  Wales

  101,393

  15

  0·015

  Northern

  98,905

  21

  0·021

  Yorkshire

  120,448

  12

  0·010

  Trent

  159,398

  28

  0·018

  East Anglia

  64,424

  8

  0·012

  North West Thames

  258,054

  24

  0·009

  North East Thames

  229,278

  15

  0·007

  South East Thames

  184,154

  11

  0·006

  South West Thames

  156,905

  14

  0·009

  Wessex

  89,641

  24

  0·027

  Oxford

  90,772

  7

  0·008

  South Western

  108,272

  14

  0·013

  West Midlands

  230,402

  18

  0·008

  Mersey

  91,559

  13

  0·014

  North Western

  153,515

  27

  0·018

  Note: A =Total abortions 1970–87 inclusive.

  B = Performed under grounds 5 or 6.

  1 The Act allows abortions to be performed in emergency to savey the life of the pregnant woman (ground 5) or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (ground 6).

  2 1970–73: Hospital regions.

  1974–87: Regional health authorities.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of abortions that have so far been performed in the United Kingdom under the Abortion Act 1967; how many of these abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother; and what percentage this latter figure represents of the former.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total number of notifications of legal terminations, to resident and non-resident women, carried out in the United Kingdom under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 from 27 April 1968 to 31 December 1987 is 2,960,234. Of these 142 (0·005 per cent.) were performed under ground 5 of the Act, in emergency to save the life of the pregnant woman.

  Complete United Kingdom data for 1988 are not yet available; currently available data, which are provisional, are as follows:

  Total

  Ground 5

  England and Wales (1 January to 30 September 1988)

  137,103

  14

  Scotland (1 January to 31 December 1988)

  10,003

  0

  1 (0.003 per cent. of total).

  Note The Abortion Act 1967 does not apply in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of abortions performed on girls under the age of 16 years have been carried out in(a) non-National Health Service premises and (b) pay beds in National Health Service hospitals in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
  97
  Mr. Freeman
  No data on the number of terminations performed in pay beds in National Health Service hospitals are collected centrally. The other data requested are shown in the table.

  Number of notifications of (a) total abortions and (b) those performed in non-NHS premises, on girls under 16 years of age, England and Wales, 1983–87

  A

  B

  Year

  Total number

  Performed in non-NHS premises

  Percentage B of A

  1983

  4,566

  1,898

  41·6

  1984

  4,609

  1,971

  42·8

  1985

  4,427

  1,874

  42·3

  1986

  4,240

  1,734

  40·9

  1987

  4,075

  1,747

  42·9

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing a reduction in the upper time limit for abortions to 20 weeks; what percentage the latter represents of the former; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since March 1989 we have received 25 representations; 14 supported a reduction in the time limit. None referred specifically to a 20-week limit.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the saving to the National Health Service as a result of the compulsory wearing of front seat belts, in each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No precise estimate has been made. The introduction of compulsory wearing of front seat belts has undoubtedly saved the lives of some of those involved in road traffic accidents. However, many of those whose lives have been saved have instead received injuries with consequent costs to the National Health Service which would not previously have been incurred.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staffed hostels for discharged psychiatric patients provided by(a) local authorities and (b) voluntary bodies are available for (i) short-term accommodation andd (ii) long-term accommodation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The numbers of homes, hostels and residential places for mentally ill people in each local authority in England is published in "Homes and Hostels for Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People (A/F 11)". A copy of the 1986 publication is in the Library; and a copy of the 1987 publication, which it is hoped will be available shortly, will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health districts which have care registers for patients with special mental health needs; and when he plans to direct other districts to establish such registers as recommended in the report of the inquiry into the care and after-care of Miss Sharon Campbell.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally. Planning guidance, issued to health and local 98
  authorities in July 1988, requires each district to have developed by 1991 a "care programme" to provide a system of co-ordinated continuing care for people chronically disabled by mental illness. Further guidance being prepared by the Department will include the need for a register of patients.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the inquiry into the care and after-care of Miss Sharon Campbell that he issue a written summary, classifying their statutory duties to provide after-care for former mentally disordered patients, to health and local authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  This recommendation is under consideration.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that employing authorities have issued guidelines to staff in respect of violence from clients, and the reporting of such incidents of violence, as recommended in the report of the inquiry into the care and after-care of Miss Sharon Campbell.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety at Work legislation places a statutory duty on employers to provide a safe working environment for their staff and the Health and Safety Executive published "Preventing Violence to Staff" with general guidance on this subject last year.

  Complementing this for the health and personal social services are: The report, "Violence to Staff, DHSS Advisory Committee on Violence to Staff", chaired by Lord Skelmersdale, which was issued at the same time as the Sharon Campbell report to directors of social services and NHS general managers and the report of the Association of Directors of Social Services, "Guidelines and Recommendations to Employers on Violence Against Employees" which was sent to local authorities in 1987. Last February we issued a video on violence to staff to directors of social services and to general managers. W hen issuing the video we said the aim was that authorities should use the Skelmersdale report and the video to stimulate constructive discussions amongst members, managers at all levels, staff and their representatives about the development of strategies and the other recommendations in the Skelmersdale report, which included the need for staff to report violent incidents. We said also this material should be useful in training courses to increase the awareness among the staff and managers of the problem of violence and what might be done to counteract it.

  At law it is for local authorities and health authorities, as the employers of the staff in these services, to take appropriate action and this was generally considered to be the best level at which action should be taken.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to issue the guidelines about psychiatric case management and community care reviews, as recommended in the report of inquiry into the care and after care of Miss Sharon Campbell; and to whom these guidelines will be made available.

  Mr. Freeman
  Further guidance to health and local authorities is being prepared on the components of "care programmes".

  Doctors and Nurses (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of doctors and nurses in Derbyshire in 1979; and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is given in the tables. Due to the 1982 NHS re-organisation, consistent data is not available for earlier years for these Districts.

  NHS Staff in post in North Derbyshire and South Derbyshire District Health Authorities

  At 30 September

  Whole time equivalents

  District health authority

  Medical and Dental

  Nursing and Midwife

  1982

  1987

  1982

  1987

  1WTE

  1WTE

  North Derbyshire

  84

  88

  1,875

  2,161

  Southern Derbyshire

  202

  184

  3,939

  3,947

  Source: D of H (SM13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1 All figures independently rounded to nearest whole time equivalent (WTE).

  2 Figures includes permanent paid, honorary and locum staff and exclude all consultants and senior registrars whose contracts are held by the regional health authority. The district health authority where

  The new clinical grading structure for nursing, midwifery and health visitor staff

  Numbers of old clinical grades assimilated to each of the new clinical grades on the basis of duties and responsibilities on 1 April 1988: South Derbyshire

  Previous grade

  Staff3

  Numbers transferred to each new clinical grade

  (Whole time Equivalents)

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  2G

  H

  I

  Nursing Auxiliary

  941·53

  853·73

  79·80

  8·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nursery Nurse

  18·10

  —

  11·70

  6·40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled Nurse1

  603·21

  —

  —

  307·44

  275·59

  20·18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled District Nurse1

  10·44

  —

  —

  —

  10·44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Enrolled Nurse1

  40·60

  —

  —

  —

  27·50

  11·39

  1·71

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse1

  657·48

  —

  —

  —

  169·07

  451·03

  37·38

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Midwife1

  50·00

  —

  —

  —

  16·89

  33·11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister1

  18·37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17·33

  1·00

  —

  —

  Nursing Sister II1

  451·92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  264·02

  174·22

  13·69

  —

  Midwifery Sister II1

  106·13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40·95

  65·28

  —

  —

  District Nurse (Sister II)1

  94·33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94·33

  —

  —

  Nursing Sister I

  5·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  2·00

  1·00

  Midwifery Sister I

  2·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  —

  —

  Health Visitor

  94·53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94·53

  —

  —

  Senior Nurse 9

  53·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11·00

  34·00

  8·00

  Senior Nurse 8 (Midwife)

  11·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·00

  5·00

  1·00

  Senior Nurse 7

  33·60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15·60

  15·00

  Senior Nurse 7 (Midwife)

  1·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  —

  Clinical Teacher

  22·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22·16

  —

  Fieldwork Teacher

  10·75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10·75

  —

  Practical Work Teacher

  32·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·00

  29·00

  —

  Tutor

  19·53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19·53

  Tutor Midwife

  6·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·00

  Post basic students

  Enrolled

  23·00

  —

  —

  23·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse

  56·00

  —

  —

  —

  40·00

  16·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sister II

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  4·21

  2·21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·09

  Totals

  3,365·89

  855·94

  91·50

  344·84

  539·49

  531·71

  361·29

  452·36

  133·23

  55·53

  1 Excludes post basic students

  2 Excludes some additional '6' posts which health authorities have indicated they intend to create in future on existing two-sister wards.

  3 Staff in post plus vacancies.

  100
  those staff work cannot be identified centrally. There will therefore be more doctors and dentists actually working in North Derbyshire and Southern Derbyshire district health authorities than are accounted for in the table.

  3 Includes agency nursing and midwifery staff.

  FPC staff in post

  Number of all practitioners

  Number of nurses

  Whole-time equivalent

  1982

  452

  52

  28

  1987

  507

  103

  56

  Note: The number of doctors include all general medical practitioners (unrestricted and restricted principals, assistants and trainees) for which Derbyshire family practitioner committee was responsible. Also the number of nurses employed by those doctors, and their whole-time equivalent.

  Grading Returns (Derbyshire)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available the grading returns received from the Southern Derbyshire district health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  The grading returns specified the number of nursing and midwifery staff in each old grade that were assimilated to each of the new clinical grades. This information is given in the table.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As referred to in the Younger report on privacy, electronic listening devices are sometimes used in the observation of patients in hospitals.

  Hospitals (Policy Decisions)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether prior to his proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients", he gathered information on the amount of time necessary to make decisions on general policy for the management of hospitals, and specifically on(a) organisation of services for in-patients and out-patients, (b) co-ordination of time-tables for staff-rotas and (c) organisation and control of funding exercises required for (i) adequate pay rewards for the medical, nursing and auxiliary staff, (ii) demands for changes in numbers of hospital staff and (iii) adequate provisions for the good operation of the different hospital units.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We undertook a comprehensive review of all relevant aspects of the NHS before bringing forward our proposals for change.

  Hearing Loss
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he plans to provide to the public more information and a wider education programme on the facts surrounding loss of hearing.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department publishes the booklet "How to use your hearing aid" which is issued free to all NHS hearing aid users. It gives useful general advice and includes reference to other services which may be of help to hearing impaired people. The Department of Social Security publishes leaflet NI 207 on occupational deafness which explains how industrial injuries disablement benefit may be claimed. There are no plans to issue any additional guidance at present. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has however, referred to the need for better information for consumers in their "Fair Hearing" campaign document "Hearing Aids—The Case for Change", and we shall be considering this along with the other proposals that it has put forward.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has any plans to implement the Royal National Institute for the Deaf proposal, set out in the document "Hearing Aids—a Case for Change", for a new system of dispensing hearing aids, and helping the deaf or hard of hearing to obtain help;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's review of its policy on hearing aid provision and services; what proposals he has to improve counselling to those who are deaf or hard of hearing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are grateful to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf for their comprehensive package of proposals relating to the provision of hearing aids. We 102
  have now received their refined proposals which take into account the comments they have received from other interested organisations. The issues involved are complex and because of the wide-ranging implications of any change in the present system of provision, we shall need to take time to consider them, in the light of the views of all concerned. We shall of course bear fully in mind the need for rehabilitation and after-care services for those who are deaf or hard of hearing.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to widen the range of hearing aids available on the National Health Service to cover cosmetically designed hearing aids.

  Mr. Mellor
  The National Health Service range of hearing aids is provided to ameliorate loss of hearing rather than for cosmetic reasons. In-the-ear hearing aids, which are sometimes regarded as more cosmetically acceptable, can be provided where an NHS consultant can see clear clinical reasons for doing so. Skin tone hearing aids are available in each of the NHS series of behind-the-ear aids.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will implement stricter regulations concerning compensation and maintenance cover for users of hearing aids;

  (2) what is his policy towards free maintenance of hearing aids in the public and private sectors.

  Mr. Mellor
  Routine maintenance of all hearing aids issued under National Health Service arrangements is free. However, the cost of repair or replacement of a hearing aid may be recovered in cases of repeated loss or damage from patients or parents of children who are patients. Hearing aids provided by the private sector are the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Retinal Conditions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those centres within the National Health Service which currently specialise in the treatment of retinal conditions.

  Mr. Freeman
  All district health authorities have access to ophthalmology departments which treat retinal conditions, although some may have a particular interest in certain retinal conditions.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning centres currently undertaking research into retinal conditions.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is currently funding research for the screening of diabetic patients for diabetic retinopathy at Oxford, Sheffield and Exeter. A report of this work will be submitted later this year.

  We are aware that work in this area is also being funded by some medical research charities.

  Cryptosporidia
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's officials' involvement in investigations of the incidence of cryptosporidia in the water supply.
  103
  Mr. Freeman
  An official of the Department is medical secretary to the expert group on cryptosporidium in water supplies, which was announced on 2 March by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for Water and Planning at column 286; another attends its meetings as an observer. The Department monitors other outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis, irrespective of source, in association with the communicable disease surveillance centre which collects data on this disease.

  Higher Diploma Examinations
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will raise with the relevant professional bodies the recommendation of the Hoffenberg committee that questions about brain stem death organ transplantation and related matters should be asked from time to time in higher diploma examinations in medicine, surgery and anaesthesia.

  Type of Whole Scanner in use

  Location in West Midlands

  Installation date

  Main source of funding

  CT

  Birmingham Childrens Hospital

  1986

  Public Appeal/Health Authority

  CT

  Birmingham General Hospital

  1988

  Health Authority

  CT

  Corbett Hospital Dudley (District Consortium includes Kidderminster and Bromsgrove)

  1985

  Public Appeal/Health Authority

  CT

  Coventry, Walsgrave Hospital

  1976

  Public Appeal

  CT

  Coventry, Walsgrave Hospital

  1988

  Health Authority

  MRI1

  Coventry, Walsgrave Hospital

  1988

  Public Appeal/Health Authority

  CT

  Good Hope Hospital, North Birmingham

  1987

  Public Appeal

  CT

  Midland Centre for Neurosurgery, Sandwell

  1976

  Health Authority/DoH

  CT

  Midlands Centre for Neurosurgery, Sandwell

  1984

  Health Authority

  CT

  Mobile Unit, serving Hereford/West and East Birmingham/ Burton/Walsall

  1985

  Health Authority

  CT

  New Cross, Wolverhampton

  1987

  Health Authority

  CT

  North Staffs Royal Infirmary

  1983

  Public Appeal

  CT

  North Staff Royal Infirmary

  1987

  Health Authority

  CT

  North Staffs Royal Infirmary

  1987

  Health Authority

  CT

  Q E Medical Centre, Central Birmingham

  1984

  Health Authority

  CT

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt, Oswestry, Shropshire

  1986

  Health Authority

  CT

  Ronkswood, Worcester

  1989

  Public Appeal

  CT

  Sandwell D G Hospital

  1985

  Public Appeal

  CT

  Walsall

  1989

  Health Authority

  1Magnetic Resonance Imager

  In the next 12 months, new CT scanners are planned at Dudley road hospital, West Birmingham, and Selly Oak hospital, South Birmingham, both to be funded from health authority sources.

  Creutzfeldt Jakob Dementia
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 289, what alternative methods of monitoring Creutzfeldt Jakob dementia he is considering.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are seeking to establish a national register of all cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, validated by experts in this field. A similar methodology has been used with success in the past: details can be found in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry (1975) Vol. 38, pages 210–13 and (1988) Vol. 51, 1113–19.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department now possesses about the incidence of Creutzfeldt Jakob dementia.

  Mr. Freeman
  The mean annual mortality rate of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in England and Wales for the last period studied in detail (1980–84 inclusive) was 0·49 million. Currently, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is given on death certificates as the underlying cause of death in about 30 deaths a year.
  104
  Mr. Freeman
  The medical royal colleges are responsible for deciding the content of their examinations. However, officials wrote to the Conference of medical royal colleges on 10 November 1988, drawing attention to the relevant recommendation of the Hoffenberg report.

  Body Scanners
  Mr. Dave Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redwood) of 10 May,Official Report, column 450, and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, 23 May, Official Report, column 488, he will take steps to obtain the information on whole body scanners in the West Midlands regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Wakefield Family Practitioner Committee
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has issued guidelines on the number of members of the Wakefield family practitioner committee that should be appointed to meet hon. Members representing local constituencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have issued no such guidelines. It is a matter for individual FPCs to decide the level of representation at particular meetings.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he issued guidelines to the Wakefield family practitioner committee on when the White Paper "Working for Patients" should be considered and discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have issued no such guidelines. I welcome discussion by FPCs on the implications for implementing locally the proposals contained in the White Paper.
  105
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the chairman of the Wakefield family practitioner committee has been appointed an agent on behalf of the Secretary of State; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  FPCs are the Secretary of State's agents responsible for administering and managing family practitioner services. Chairmen and members are appointed by the Secretary of State and are accountable to him for the discharge of these duties.

  Anaesthetics (Consent)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek to introduce legislation to require that the parent or guardian of a minor signs the consent form for general anaesthetic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Arrangements for ensuring that patients (and parents or guardians where appropriate) are informed about proposed treatments and for obtaining their consent are under review. Revised guidance will be issued as soon as the review has been concluded. The Government has no plans to introduce legislation.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the population of each district health authority, the mortality rate for those aged under 75 years in each district health authority and the number of people aged over 85 years in each district health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Estimates of resident population for district health authorities in England at mid-1987 are given in the tables. Mortality rates for particular age groups in each area can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Estimated resident population at mid-1987

  Thousands

  Regional and District Health Authorities in England

  All ages

  Aged 85+

  Northern

  3,076·8

  36·8

  Hartlepool

  89·8

  0·9

  North Tees

  175·9

  1·5

  South Tees

  288·8

  2·6

  East Cumbria

  177·7

  2·5

  South Cumbria

  172·2

  2·8

  West Cumbria

  136·9

  1·4

  Darlington

  124·0

  1·6

  Durham

  235·2

  2·6

  North West Durham

  86·3

  1·1

  South West Durham

  153·2

  1·7

  Northumberland

  300·9

  3·8

  Gateshead

  206·9

  2·5

  Newcastle

  282·7

  4·3

  North Tyneside

  192·9

  2·4

  South Tyneside

  156·3

  2·0

  Sunderland

  297·1

  2·9

  Yorkshire

  3,604·7

  49·1

  Hull

  301·9

  3·9

  East Yorks

  192·2

  2·9

  Grimsby

  158·8

  1·8

  Scunthorpe

  193·7

  2·1

  Northallerton

  113·9

  1·5

  York

  263·4

  3·5

  Scarborough

  144·4

  3·0

  Harrogate

  135·4

  2·3

  Bradford

  337·2

  4·1

  Airedale

  173·9

  2·9

  Calderdale

  194·8

  2·9

  Huddersfield

  212·1

  2·9

  Dewsbury

  163·7

  1·7

  106

  Regional and District Health Authorities in England

  All ages

  Aged 85+

  Leeds Western

  362·3

  5·7

  Leeds Eastern

  346·7

  4·7

  Wakefield

  144·1

  1·5

  Pontefract

  166·2

  1·7

  Trent

  4,646·3

  57·2

  North Derbyshire

  362·0

  4·6

  South Derbyshire

  527·0

  6·4

  Leicestershire

  879·4

  10·8

  North Lincolnshire

  270·6

  3·2

  South Lincolnshire

  304·0

  4·4

  Bassetlaw

  104·9

  1·1

  Central Nottinghamshire

  288·5

  3·2

  Nottingham

  614·4

  7·8

  Barnsley

  221·5

  2·3

  Doncaster

  290·1

  3·0

  Rotherham

  251·7

  2·5

  Sheffield

  532·3

  7·8

  East Anglian

  2,013·7

  28·9

  Cambridge

  273·0

  3·9

  Peterborough

  205·0

  2·0

  West Suffolk

  226·8

  2·7

  East Suffolk

  321·3

  5·2

  Norwich

  468·9

  8·1

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  197·6

  3·2

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  187·9

  2·8

  Huntingdon

  133·3

  1·2

  North West Thames

  3,488·3

  44·6

  North Bedfordshire

  249·6

  2·6

  South Bedfordshire

  276·4

  2·5

  North Hertfordshire

  185·6

  1·9

  East Hertfordshire

  295·6

  3·4

  North West Hertfordshire

  261·1

  3·1

  South West Hertfordshire

  244·6

  3·4

  Barnet

  305·9

  4·6

  Harrow

  200·1

  3·3

  Hillingdon

  231·0

  3·1

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  281·1

  3·8

  Ealing

  296·9

  3·8

  Brent

  256·6

  2·9

  Paddington and North Kensington

  120·6

  1·5

  Riverside

  283·4

  4·6

  North East Thames

  3,771·5

  52·6

  Basildon and Thurrock

  281·5

  2·4

  Mid Essex

  289·9

  3·2

  North East Essex

  304·5

  5·5

  East Essex

  252·0

  2·5

  Southend

  323·3

  5·5

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  455·8

  5·6

  Hampstead

  109·8

  2·0

  Bloomsbury

  128·8

  2·3

  Islington

  168·7

  2·3

  City and Hackney

  192·1

  2·4

  Newham

  206·5

  2·5

  Tower Hamlets

  159·0

  2·1

  Enfield

  261·5

  4·3

  Haringey

  193·7

  2·7

  Redbridge

  230·1

  3·6

  Waltham Forest

  214·5

  3·6

  South East Thames

  3,635·4

  60·8

  Brighton

  299·0

  6·8

  Eastbourne

  232·5

  6·8

  Hastings

  166·6

  5·0

  South East Kent

  266·6

  4·7

  Canterbury and Thanet

  303·0

  6·5

  Dartford and Gravesham

  219·6

  2·2

  Maidstone

  197·1

  2·2

  Medway

  328·5

  3·3

  Tunbridge Wells

  195·8

  3·3

  Bexley

  220·6

  2·7

  Greenwich

  216·6

  2·8

  Bromley

  298·2

  4·4

  West Lambeth

  161·7

  2·5

  107

  Regional and District Health Authorities in England

  All ages

  Aged 85+

  Camberwell

  212·3

  2·8

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  317·6

  4·8

  South West Thames

  2,959·6

  50·1

  North West Surrey

  206·4

  2·9

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  275·1

  2·7

  South West Surrey

  181·3

  3·2

  Mid Surrey

  165·2

  2·6

  East Surrey

  182·8

  2·7

  Chichester

  180·2

  4·1

  Mid Downs

  276·3

  3·5

  Worthing

  243·5

  8·0

  Croydon

  319·2

  4·3

  Kingston and Esher

  175·9

  3·1

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  231·9

  4·3

  Wandsworth

  189·2

  2·8

  Merton and Sutton

  332·6

  5·9

  Wessex

  2,905·6

  46·5

  East Dorset

  448·81

  10·6

  West Dorset

  200·5

  3·8

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  529·7

  7·2

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  418·8

  6·4

  Winchester

  210·4

  2·7

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  217·2

  2·2

  Salisbury

  121·1

  2·0

  Swindon

  230·2

  2·5

  Bath

  402·7

  6·3

  Isle of Wight

  126·9

  2·8

  Oxford

  2,501·8

  82·1

  East Berkshire

  359·7

  3·6

  West Berkshire

  451·7

  4·7

  Aylesbury Vale

  144·3

  1·85

  Wycombe

  269·8

  3·2

  Milton Keynes

  170·8

  1·2

  Kettering

  255·0

  3·2

  Northampton

  306·8

  3·6

  Oxfordshire

  543·6

  6·4

  South Western

  3,205·85

  54·7

  Bristol and Weston

  367·2

  6·1

  Frenchay

  220·6

  3·1

  Southmead

  232·4

  3·1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  453·1

  7·5

  Exeter

  306·1

  6·4

  North Devon

  133·4

  2·6

  Plymouth

  329·9

  5·0

  Torbay

  240·5

  6·3

  Cheltenham and District

  210·6

  3·5

  Gloucester

  311·6

  4·1

  Somerset

  399·9

  7·80

  West Midlands

  5,197·7

  57·3

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  166·9

  1·2

  Herefordshire

  156·0

  2·84

  Kidderminster and District

  101·7

  1·2

  Worcester and District

  240·6

  3·2

  Shropshire

  396·5

  4·7

  Mid Staffordshire

  311·3

  2·9

  North Staffordshire

  461·1

  5·4

  South East Staffordshire

  255·1

  2·1

  Rugby

  85·2

  0·9

  North Warwickshire

  174·0

  1·7

  South Warwickshire

  255·0

  2·8

  Central Birmingham

  180·7

  2·85

  East Birmingham

  197·6

  2·2

  North Birmingham

  163·7

  1·9

  South Birmingham

  246·3

  3·1

  West Birmingham

  209·89

  2·0

  Coventry

  308·9

  3·3

  Dudley

  302·6

  3·1

  Sandwell

  298·4

  3·7

  Solihull

  203·9

  1·9

  Walsall

  261·8

  2·1

  Wolverhampton

  250·5

  2·9

  108

  Regional and District Health Authorities in England

  All ages

  Aged 85+

  Mersey

  2,408·7

  30·3

  Chester

  177·0

  2·1

  Crewe

  247·8

  2·7

  Halton

  143·1

  1·2

  Macclesfield

  179·3

  2·4

  Warrington

  185·4

  1·7

  Liverpool

  476·0

  7·0

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  348·7

  3·1

  Southport and Formby

  118·7

  2·6

  South Sefton

  178·5

  2·2

  Wirral

  354·1

  5·3

  North Western

  3,991·1

  51·4

  Lancaster

  130·4

  2·6

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  318 8

  6·6

  Preston

  126·7

  1·8

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  268·6

  3·3

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  227·8

  2·9

  West Lancashire

  106·7

  0·7

  Chorley and South Ribble

  194·7

  1·8

  Bolton

  262·3

  3·1

  Bury

  173·7

  2·2

  North Manchester

  142·9

  1·8

  Central Manchester

  125·0

  1·6

  South Manchester

  182·1

  2·4

  Oldham

  219·5

  2·5

  Rochdale

  214·2

  2·4

  Salford

  237·7

  3·2

  Stockport

  291·1

  3·6

  Tameside and Glossop

  245·7

  2·8

  Trafford

  216·1

  2·9

  Wigan

  307·2

  3·1

  Source: OPCS 1987 mid-year estimates

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speech therapists are employed by the Leicestershire health authority with special responsibility for work in schools; how many vacancies the Leicestershire health authority has for such speech therapists and for how long these vacancies have been open; what recruitment efforts are being made to fill these positions and whether these efforts include salary incentives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold the information centrally in the form requested. The hon. Member may care to write to the chairman of Leicestershire health authority for the information he seeks.

  Medical and Dental Education
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The steering group, which contains representatives of all the major bodies concerned with undergraduate medical and dental education, was set up in November 1987 following a conference called by the permanent secretaries of my Department and the Department of Education and Science (Hansard, column 577–8, 18 November 1987). The steering group has now produced an interim report which clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the bodies concerned and makes recommendations relating to the principles underlying undergraduate medical and dental education, and to improved planning, management and information. I have today placed copies of the report in the Library.
  109
  Paragraph 4.30 of "Working for Patients" emphasised the Government's continuing commitment to maintaining the quality of medical education and research, and said that the steering group would develop its work and make recommendations in the light of the proposals in the White Paper.

  The group began this second phase of its work by considering arrangements for the payment of the service increment for teaching (SIFT) which is designed to offset the excess service costs associated with medical education. The group has recommended that SIFT should continue to be paid through NHS channels and according to the following four principles which I have accepted.

  (i) SIFT should be allocated to regions, pro-rata to student numbers;

  (ii) Regions or Districts, as appropriate to local curcumstances, taking advice from medical and dental schools, should contract with hospitals (including self-governing hospitals) to provide service facilities for teaching in return for SIFT payments;

  (iii) SIFT payments should be made in consultation with medical and dental schools and reflect the teaching activity in each hospital—if the number of students increased or decreased, the allocation of SIFT should be reconsidered;

  (iv) while in the past sub-regional allocation of SIFT had been unspecific in many cases, in future payments from regions should be clearly identifiable to all parties as a recognition of the service costs of teaching.

  The group has further work in hand and will offer recommendations as soon as they reach conclusions on the issues they must address.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will lay regulations relating to consumer safeguards on sight tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I intend shortly to lay before the House the Sight Testing (Examination and Prescription) Regulations. I have considered carefully comments made in the course of consultation on these regulations and I have decided in the light of those received that all sight tests, whether National Health Service or private must include a refraction, an eye examination and other tests appropriate for individual patients. In addition all patients will be given a copy of their optical prescription to enable them to shop around for spectacles in order to ensure that the competition which has developed in the optical market continues to grow. The regulations will not apply to people having sight tests for employment or insurance purposes or who are resident in hospital or who are referred to their general practitioner for further investigations or treatment. These will be the only exceptions.

  In reaching my decision I noted with interest the intention of the General Optical Council to carry out within the next 12 months a wide-ranging programme of investigations in connection with my consultation document on sight tests. I have made it clear that I shall reconsider the sight test regulations in the light of the council's report.

TRANSPORT

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if any of the new roads being considered by his London assessment studies, or the extension of the North Circular road across the east London river crossing are included in the list of projects for consideration as part of his toll road proposals.

  Mr. Channon
  The consultants reports on the assessment studies are expected in the summer. It is too early to say what road schemes may flow from the studies and whether any will involve tolls.

  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 16 May on the East London River Crossing at column 113.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by his Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Traffic Flows (Popham—M27)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the latest available summer and winter five-day and seven-day traffic flows for the M3/A33 route between Popham and the M27, for the following sections(a) Popham-Easton Lane, (b) Easton Lane-Bar End, (c) Bar End-Hockley, (d) Hockley-Compton, (e) Compton-Chandlers Ford and (f) Chandlers Ford-M27; and if he will list the peak hour flows for each direction separately for each section.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information is not available on summer and winter traffic flows.

  The estimated Annual Average Daily Flows (24 hours) for all motor vehicles for 1987 are as follows:

  All days

  Weekdays

  Popham-Easton Lane M3

  19,300

  20,500

  Popham-Easton Lane A33

  26,700

  27,400

  Easton Lane-Bar End A33

  41,800

  42,700

  Bar End-Hockley A33

  54,600

  55,500

  Hockley-Compton A33

  54,500

  56,100

  Compton-Chandlers Ford A33

  46,500

  46,800

  Chandlers Ford-M27 A33

  25,600

  25,700

  There are limited data on peak flows. The information relates to May 1987 and is for combined directions, as follows.

  AM peak

  PM peak

  Popham-Easton Lane M3

  2,948

  2,954

  Easton Lane A33

  918

  924

  Bar End Road A33

  1,204

  1,119

  Morestone Road A33

  835

  783

  Compton-Chandlers Ford A33

  5,116

  4,777

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what length of the M3-A33 between Popham and the M27 is currently equipped with sensors in the carriageway lanes to detect queues and incidents; what is the spacing of these sensors; whether they indicate speeds of traffic; and for what length of road CCTV can be used to verify queueing or incidents.
  111
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Three queue detectors are provided at 500 m intervals on the southbound carriageway of the A33 between Bar End and Hockley. They are connected to a "Queue Ahead" sign 1·3 km north of Hockley traffic lights and a speed detector 2 km north of the traffic lights, which detects speeds above 50 mph.

  CCTV cameras are sited at junction 9 on the M3 with an approximate viewing distance of 2 km north and south, and at A33 Hockley traffic lights viewing 1 km north and 300–400 m south. The camera at Hockley can also view traffic approaching A33 on the A333 (Ghost Corner) and B3335 Twyford with a viewing distance on the side roads of about 75 m.

  Traffic Flows (A33-M3)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the present daily and peak-hour flows entering and leaving the A33-M3 at the following junctions:(a) M3/A34 interchange, Easton Lane, (b) Bar End, (c) Hockley, all movements, (d) Compton, northfacing slip roads, (e) Shawford, A31 junction, (f) Chandlers Ford and (g) M27 and A35 (northbound flows on to A33).

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is not available.

  Winchester Bypass
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average lane occupancy in vehicles per mile of the A33 Winchester bypass in each direction in(a) offpeak and (b) peak hours; and what is the average speed recorded for each situation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is not available.

  A33 (Bar End-Compton)
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the minor schemes and expenditure undertaken on the A33 between Bar End and Compton since the decision letter on the 1976–77 inquiry was issued in 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A33 Hockley crossroads £500,000.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average number of incidents per week significantly affecting traffic flow on the A33 between Bar End and Compton; and what is the average response time between an incident occurring on this length of dual carriageway and a recovery vehicle removing the vehicle or vehicles immobilised.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not held by the Department.

  SS Ave
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he took to ascertain that the wages and conditions of the crew on the SS Ave, which recently called at Teesport and Immingham, conform to international regulations.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Ave was not visited by Department of Transport marine surveyors at Imingham or Teesport. A112
  port state control inspection had been conducted in Rotterdam on 2 May 1989 and a valid inspection form issued.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the movements of the SS Ave which recently discharged a cargo of South African coal at Teesport.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Ave is believed to have arrived in Rotterdam from Maputo, Mozambique, and to have sailed from Rotterdam on 3 May. She arrived in Immingham later the same day, remaining there until 7 May when she sailed for Teesport. The Ave was in Teesport from 7 May until 13 May when she sailed bound for Hamburg.

  Vehicles (Silencer Kits)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has concerning the safety implication of fitting air brake silencer kits to heavy goods vehicles;

  (2) what recent representations he has received concerning the requirement that in order to qualify for a permit under the London area lorry scheme vehicles must be fitted with air brake silencer kits;

  (3) when he last met the London boroughs transport scheme to discuss the issue of air brake silencer kits; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) whether he has had any consultations with representatives of the insurance industry concerning the invalidation of policies by the fitting of air brake silencer kits.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Secretary of State has not met the London boroughs transport scheme to discuss the issue of air brake silencer kits. A vehicle's braking system needs to ensure efficient responsive braking. It is for vehicle manufacturers to ensure that this is done. The possible use of air brake silencers should therefore be considered at design stage. If air brake silencers are fitted retrospectively, then as with any other modification, care must be taken. The air brake silencer must be carefully positioned and the manufacturer of the vehicle should be consulted before it is fitted. Good maintenance is essential.

  We have not consulted the insurance industry. It is for vehicle operators to ensure that their insurance policies are not invalidated by any modifications they make to their vehicles.

  Representations have been received on the issue of air brake silencers from the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. We have also received a number of individual representations. The Freight Transport Association has challenged in the courts the requirements by the London boroughs transport scheme to fit brake silencer kits. The matter is currently the subject of a judicial review.

  Birmingham cross-city Railway
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has seen and commented upon a draft proposal from British Rail to electrify the Birmingham cross-city railway line; on how many occasions the matter has been discussed between his Department and British
  113
  Rail; which points of clarification have been sought by his Department; and when he expects British Rail to submit a formal investment proposal.

  Mr. Portillo
  Department of Transport officials have seen and commented upon a draft proposal from British Rail to electrify the Birmingham cross-city railway line and have had two meetings with British Rail to discuss it. The Department is currently awaiting clarification of various issues concerning the forecast net benefit of electrification costs. I expect British Rail to submit a formal investment proposal shortly.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date discussions took place between his Department and British Rail about the proposed electrification of the Birmingham cross-city railway line; whether such discussions are likely to lead to a formal investment proposal; whether any further work which British Rail has to do on the proposals arose as a result of informal discussion between the two parties; and what information he has on the extent of local interest in the possibility of converting the cross-city line into a Metro line.

  Mr. Portillo
  Informal discussions between Department of Transport officials and British Rail about the proposed electrification of the Birmingham cross-city railway line took place on 5 January 1989 and 21 April 1989. British Rail has further work to do on the proposal as a result of these discussions and is planning to make a formal investment proposal. Although the possibility of converting the cross-city line into a Metro line was raised in connection with the Birmingham integrated transportation study, I understand that it is not now being pursued as part of that study.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he expects British Rail to set out when submitting an investment proposal to him regarding the electrification of the Birmingham cross-city railway line.

  Mr. Portillo
  We expect British Rail to demonstrate that the proposed electrification would represent better value for money than other options, in particular providing a modern diesel service.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department intends to take the decision on approval of the electrification of the cross-city line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  We can decide only when we have received a formal investment proposal from British Rail.

  Vehicles (M6)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will assess the effectiveness of the exercise

  Average weekday peak hour and 8 pm and 8 am flows on specified links and for specified dates on the M6

  Average weekday:

  Junction

  Date

  Peak hour

  Peak flow

  8 pm-8 am

  4A-5 North

  February 1989

  8 am-9 am

  5,700

  14,200

  4A-5 South

  February 1989

  5 pm-6 pm

  6,000

  14,000

  5–6 South

  February 1989

  5 pm-6 pm

  5,300

  12,500

  6–7 North

  September 1988

  3 pm-4 pm

  3,700

  15,800

  8W-9 South

  March 1989

  4 pm-5 pm

  6,700

  17,000

  9–10 North

  March 1989

  5 pm-6 pm

  5,900

  17,700

  9–10 South

  March 1989

  4 pm-5 pm

  5,800

  18,000

  Note: Separate data for goods vehicles are not available.
  114
  by Staffordshire county constabulary in surveying vehicles on the M6 to discover how many were unfit for use; and if he will take steps to encourage chief constables to undertake similar exercises.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The types of vehicle check carried out by Staffordshire police are effective both in enforcing the law and increasing inter-agency co-operation. The Department's enforcement staff will continue to assist the police in similar exercises on the M6 and elsewhere.

  M4 Motorway
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for the M6 motorway between junctions 4 and 10A(a) the designed hourly capacity, (b) the daily traffic flow, (c) the peak time hourly traffic flow, (d) the hourly peak time through traffic, (e) the total traffic flow between the hours of 8 pm and 8 am and (f) the number of heavy goods vehicles per day, in each case: (i) at present and (ii) estimated for 1995 and 2005.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer Thursday 25 May 1989]: The Department uses design reference flows rather than traffic flow standards when designing motorways. These indicate only the starting point for detailed operational and economic assessment of options. The Department's design reference flows for a dual three-lane motorway—which describes the M6 between junctions 4 and 10A—range from 50,000 to 79,000 vehicles per annual average day in the design year (15 years after the year in which the road opens). However, the maximum capacity of any road in terms of throughput is considerably more than its "design flow" and will vary with the vehicle mix, road layout, time of day, time of year, and driving conditions.

  The latest estimates of the annual average daily flow (AADF) for the M6 between junctions 4 and 10A relate to 1987. The figures are given in the following table.

  Estimated annual average daily flow1 of all vehicles and of heavy goods vehicles on specified links of the M6: 1987

  Junction

  All motor vehicles

  HGVs

  4–5

  71,000

  14,200

  5–6

  77,200

  13,810

  6–7

  98,300

  18,580

  7–8

  115,000

  24,850

  8–9

  111,500

  21,930

  9–10

  110,300

  21,540

  10–10A

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1 Both directions of travel.

  n.a. = not available.

  Counts for peak flows and for flows between 8 pm and 8 am are available for only some of these links. The information is in the following table:
  115
  Estimates of through traffic were made for two links of this section of the M6 in 1984 and are given in the table.

  Proportion of 12 hour daytime flow estimated as through traffic by type of vehicle and for specified junctions on the M6: 1984

  Junction

  All vehicles Per cent.

  Heavy vehicles Per cent.

  4A-5

  35

  45

  10–10A

  50

  57

  The Department prepares forecasts of national traffic. Where specific trunk road improvements are being assessed local traffic forecasts are prepared. Projections are not otherwise made for specific roads.

  Dursban
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions are placed on the transport of the chemical Dursban; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the appropriate regulations are being observed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer Friday 26 May 1989]: Dursban is not listed as a dangerous substance in transport legislation. It is an organo-phosphate insecticide, approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. These regulations make general provisions requiring any person selling, supplying or storing pesticides to take all reasonable precautions, particularly with regard to storage and transport, to protect human health, fauna and flora and the environment.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the United Kingdom balance of payments for 1989.

  Mr. Major
  The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" for 1989–90 shows a forecast deficit for the current account of the balance of payments in 1989 of £14½billion.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in visible goods in 1989.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in visible goods in 1989.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in visible goods in 1989.

  Mr. Major
  The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" for 1989–90 shows a forecast deficit for visible trade in 1989 of £21½billion.

  Prices and Taxes Indexes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make to the release dates for the retail index and the tax and price index, on his assumption of responsibility for their publication.
  116
  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Inflation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current inflation rate in the United Kingdom; and what it was one year ago.

  Mr. Lilley
  The all-items RPI annual inflation rate in April 1989 was 8 per cent., and was 3·9 per cent. in April 1988. The underlying rate of inflation, as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, was 5·9 per cent. in April 1988.

  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent consideration he has given to the married man's tax allowance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  When independent taxation begins in April 1990 the present structure of income tax allowances will be replaced by the personal allowance and the married couple's allowance. A husband and wife will each have their own personal allowance and the new system will continue to recognise marriage through the married couple's allowance. This will be given in the first instance to the husband. The personal allowance and the married couple's allowance will together be equivalent to the present married man's allowance.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the repayment of the public sector debt held by foreign-owned institutions.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not possible to provide the information requested. However, table 8 of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin and table 2·6 of Financial Statistics show transactions in marketable Government debt by the overseas sector.

  Exports
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made for the growth of exports for 1989 as against 1988.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on 4 May at columns 203–4.

  Tax Reform
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement setting out Government policy on tax reform.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government's programme of tax reform has sought to create a climate in which businesses can thrive and individual initiative and risk taking are rewarded. A major objective has been to leave people more of their own money, so that they can choose for themselves what to do with it. In particular the Government have reduced marginal tax rates so that an extra pound of earnings or profits is really worth having. We have reduced the basic rate of income tax from 33 to 25 per cent. and set a target of 20 per cent. Business
  117
  taxation has been radically restructured, leaving the main United Kingdom corporation tax rate at 35 per cent. one of the lowest in the industrialised world. Five major taxes have been abolished completely.

  We have also tried to ensure that, as a general rule, people's choices are distorted by the tax system as little as reasonably possible. In general the objective is to charge lower rates on a broader base; thereby improving incentives and reducing distortions. However the Government have also been prepared, when it it sensible, to promote well-targeted tax reliefs which will help to make the economy work better. Other important objectives have been to provide a fair deal for married women and to simplify the tax system.

  Taxation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the percentage of average wages paid in tax in all kinds, (b) the percentage paid in income tax and (c) the percentage paid in indirect taxes for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the estimates placed in the Library of the House in reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 April at column 624.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom in 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Major
  The level of manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom in 1985 prices was £11,157 million in 1979 and £11,586 million in 1988.

  Sterling M3
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the cumulative growth in sterling M3 from 1979 to the present;

  (2) what was the cumulative growth in sterling M3 from May 1979 to 1984 and from 1984 to the present;

  (3) what was the average growth of sterling M3 in the years 1970 to 1974, 1974 to 1979, 1979 to 1983 onwards;

  (4) what was the percentage growth of sterling M3 in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Lilley
  Sterling M3 was retitled M3 in 1987. Figures from M3 from 1963 to 1988 were published in the January 1989 volume of Financial Statistics; more recent data are available in subsequent numbers of Financial Statistics or in Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin. Annex 7 of "Breaks in Monetary Series" (Bank of England discussion paper No. 23) discusses the calculation of growth rates of monetary series.

  Petrol
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the withdrawal of two-star leaded petrol by the major oil companies; and what assessment his Department has made of the difficulties created for drivers of older vehicles by the suggested use instead of four-star leaded petrol.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the withdrawal of two-star leaded 118
  petrol by some major oil companies. Many engines which formerly ran on two-star petrol can use unleaded fuel. Those which cannot are able to use four-star leaded petrol without difficulty.

  Taxation (EEC)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tabulate in a similar manner to his written answer of 24 March 1988,Official Report, columns 195–6, the likely effects on tax rates and yields in the United Kingdom of the latest proposals from the Commission of the European Communities for harmonising value added Lax, showing net and gross yields, respectively.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Commission's latest proposals are not specific either on the level of the suggested minimum standard rate of VAT or on the scope of future zero rates. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to update the previous tables.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will tabulate in the Official Report in a manner similar to that of his written answer of 23 March 1988, Official Report columns 124–26, the effect on excise duties of adoption of the latest proposals of the Commission of the European Economic Community for harmonising national taxes on alcohol, tobacco and hydrocarbon oils and fuels.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest Commission proposals contain no suggested rates for excise duties. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible at this stage to provide the information requested.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why were a quantity of African elephant tusks detained by Customs and Excise in the Flying Tigers customs shed at Heathrow airport on 20 April 1989; for whom and where the tusks were to be delivered; and what was the total weight of ivory involved.

  Mr. Lilley
  Five consignments of raw ivory are currently held at the airport at Heathrow. Two have been seized and three were detained on 12 April. The validity of the export permits produced for this ivory is being checked by the international ivory trade monitoring unit. No further details can be given at this stage.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide full details of all shipments of ivory by nature, value, country of origin and documentation discrepancy currently being detained at British ports of entry.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: Details of individual consignments where Customs action is not yet completed cannot be disclosed.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cargoes of ivory are currently at British ports of entry in transit to other destinations; and what are those destinations.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: Information on such cargoes is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Bank Notes
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury has had any recent communications with Scottish banks about the issue of Scottish bank notes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  No.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the people appointed to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations whose services were secured by executive search and selection agencies.

  Mr. Luce
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of running the Government's quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Luce
  I have been asked to reply.

  The figures for the years 1979 to 1988, at current prices, are as follows:

  £ million

  Amount of gross expenditure provided by Government

  Other associated expenditure by sponsoring Departments

  1979

  2,970

  70

  1980

  3,080

  72

  1981

  3,860

  94

  1982

  3,910

  87

  1983

  5,120

  94

  1984

  5,160

  115

  1985

  5,100

  1 1

  1986

  5,330

  116

  1987

  5,690

  112

  1988

  5,930

  118

  Figures for 1989 will be published in "Public Bodies" later this year.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy to use the services of executive search and selection agencies to recruit people for quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  I have been asked to reply.

  The procedures adopted for identifying and selecting candidates for public appointments are the responsibility of the Minister making the appointment. The use by Government of executive search and selection agencies is limited.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which executive search and selection agencies have been used to recruit people for quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  I have been asked to eply.

  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue yield from capital gains tax for the fiscal year ended April 1989; and what it was in the year ended April 1988.
  120
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: Receipts from capital gains tax in the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89 were respectively £1,379 million and £2,323 million. These figures exclude receipts from capital gains of companies and taxed within corporation tax.

  YTS
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the regulations covering tax liability on YTS earnings with regard to partial refunds of travel or lodging costs necessarily incurred in taking part in YTS.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 May 1989]: Payments in respect of costs incurred on travelling and accommodation are only made to YTS trainees who are not employees. These payments are not liable to income tax.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines have been issued to employers, sponsors and managing agents on the position of young people on YTS in relation to PAYE and NIC.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 May 1989]: No special guidance on the position of young people on YTS who are taken on as employees is needed. Employers apply the same PAYE and NIC rules as for all other employees. However, the YTS allowances are below the tax and NIC thresholds, so that no tax or NIC will be payable if the employee's only income is the basic allowance.

  As regards trainees who are not employees, the basic allowance is not taxable. Nor are these trainees taxed on payments to which they are also entitled in respect of travel and accommodation costs. The Training Agency's "Managing Agent's Handbook" advises YTS providers to seek advice from the local tax or DSS office if they propose to make payments over and above the basic allowance.

  Charitable Gifts (Tax Relief)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will amend the give-as-you-earn scheme to enable the tax relief to accrue to the benefit of the donor's designated charity.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: No. Charities already benefit from the tax relief given to employees on their donations under the payroll giving scheme. Every £1 a basic rate taxpayer gives costs him only 75p.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the number of prosecutions for tax fraud, the total number of people involved and the amount of money involved in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: The Inland Revenue keeps aggregate figures for prosecutions in England and Wales. Separate figures for Wales could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tax Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of gross income paid in
  121
  income tax, national insurance contributions and value added tax by (a) a married man with a non-earning wife and two children and (b) a married man with an earning wife and two children at one half, one and a half, two, three, five and 10 times national average earnings in 1989–90; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79.

  Married man with non-earning wife and two children

  Multiples of average male earnings

  Proportion of gross earnings

  ½

  1

  1½

  2

  3

  5

  10

  1978–79

  Income tax

  -4·1

  14·4

  20·6

  23·6

  32·0

  47·1

  64·7

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  5·6

  4·2

  2·8

  1-7

  0·8

  VAT

  —

  2·7

  2·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  Income tax

  -1·0

  12·0

  16·4

  20-2

  26·8

  32·1

  36·1

  NICs

  7·9

  8·4

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·0

  1·0

  VAT

  —

  5·0

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married man with non-earning wife and two children

  Multiples of average male earnings

  Proportion of gross earnings

  ½

  1

  1½

  2

  3

  5

  10

  1978–79

  Income tax

  -11·1

  6·4

  15·2

  19·7

  25·9

  329

  50·6

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  5·4

  3·4

  1·7

  VAT

  —

  3·4

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  Income tax

  -10·6

  71

  13·1

  16·3

  20·7

  27·0

  33·6

  NICs

  5·4

  7·5

  8·3

  8·4

  6·8

  4·1

  2·0

  VAT

  —

  5·9

  6·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Average male earnings in 1989–90 are assumed to be £273·10 per week, 7½ per cent. higher than in 1988–89. This represents a real increase of over 30 per cent. since 1978–79.

  2. Child benefit is treated as a negative income tax.

  3. Earners, including working wives, are assumed to pay class 1 National Insurance contributions at the contracted in rate. The figures for National Insurance contributions are financial year averages.

  4. The two earner couple is assumed to have joint earnings equal to the various multiples of average earnings, split between husband and wife in the ratio 60:40.

  5. The estimates of VAT are derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey and are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. Estimates cannot reliably be made outside the range of 75 per cent. to 150 per cent. of average male earnings.

DEFENCE

  Radiation
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce new compensation arrangements for British ex-servicemen who have suffered radiation ailments arising from their duties.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Trident
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on present progress in the development of the new Trident nuclear warhead at the atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The development of the Trident warhead is progressing satisfactorily towards the Trident submarine in-service date of the mid-1990s.

  Helicopters (Forced Landing)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why five British military helicopters were forced to land by the actions of other military aircraft in West Germany on Friday 19 May; and if he will make a statement.
  122
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 May 1989, c. 560]: I regret that the original tables contained an error. The amended tables are as follows:

  Mr. Neubert
  The aircraft were taking part in a pre-planned training manoeuvre.

  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the redevelopment of that part of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich which has been declared surplus to his Department's requirements.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following the announcement by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on 9 March 1989 of our intention to relocate the director general of defence quality assurance to Teesside, discussions with the London borough of Greenwich have now been held to consider arrangements for the release of the entire Woolwich Arsenal west site. The Crown estate commissioners, part owners of the site, were also present and a useful exchange of views took place.

  Further meetings are planned to continue this dialogue from which we would expect detailed proposals for the redevelopment of the site to emerge.

  F111 Aircraft (Upper Heyford)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning the number of(a)

  123
  engine failures, (b) engine shutdowns and (c) pieces of aircraft falling from planes on F111 aircraft from RAF Upper Heyford in the last five years.

  Mr. Neubert
  I understand that it is not the practice of the United States Air Force to release this information.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South of 23 May, what were the differences in the United States of America and British nuclear test objectives, and in the doses of radiation received by American and British service men, and in the protective measures taken.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member on 23 May at column 464.

  Listening Devices
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether electronic surveillance listening devices are used by his Department or by any organisation or agency acting on its behalf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are many weapons systems and other items of defence equipment in service which use electronic surveillance techniques.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to reduce the strength of the Ministry of Defence police force over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned member on 27 February at column 43.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the establishment and (b) the strength of the Ministry of Defence police force in each of the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is as follows:

  Complement

  Strength

  September 1984

  4,229

  4,003

  September 1985

  4,563

  4,255

  September 1986

  4,990

  4,681

  December 1987

  5,001

  4,841

  December 1988

  4,962

  4,706

  The details are taken from the chief constable's annual reports, which from 1987 relate to calendar years.

  CSCE Talks
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has commissioned any studies on the minimum strength of forces necessary to defend Western Europe in the event that the CSCE talks in Vienna achieve parity between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw pact forces.

  Mr. Neubert
  The NATO proposals tabled in Vienna were undepinned by studies which showed that they 124
  provided sufficient forces to maintain the forward defence of western Europe. The studies indicated that further significant reductions in tanks, artillery, etc., could have serious implications for NATO's ability to maintain forward defence, as it is currently understood.

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken to eradicate shortages of staff in the procurement executive of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Management action is already in hand to alleviate the problems identified in the recently published House of Commons Defence Committee report. These measures include the application of new and more flexible long term Civil Service pay agreements, the proposed relocation of a substantial part of the procurement executive to parts of the country where it is easier to recruit and retain staff, and the next steps initiative. The shortages tend to be concentrated in disciplines such as electronics and information technology, and in certain geographical areas especially London and the south-east. To a large extent they are a reflection of shortages from which other major employers suffer in these areas.

  Type 23 Frigate
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the proposals by Ferranti Computer Systems for a command and control system for the type 23 frigate; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consideration he has given to the use of penalty clauses in the contracts for the command and control system for the type 23 frigate;

  (3) what measures he is taking to ensure that production difficulties are minimised in the development and manufacture of the command control system for the type 23 frigate.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement that I made to the House during this year's Navy debate on 28 February at columns 166–67.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to invite tenders for additional type 23 frigates; and to which companies he will extend that invitation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer that I gave on 28 April at column 686.

  War Service Pensions
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to service during the Korean war counting towards war service pensions; and whether he has any plans to review it.

  Mr. Neubert
  Pensions awarded under the scheme for the armed forces do not distinguish between war service and other periods of service. For those personnel of the armed forces who qualify for an award of pension based on length of service given, any service during the Korean war would count on an equal footing with other periods.
  125
  There are no plans for a review. Those suffering disability as a result of injury received during the Korean war may, however, be eligible for the award of pension under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security, without regard to the length of service given.

  Royal Naval Personnel (School Boarding Allowances)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it would cost to allow seagoing Royal Naval personnel, on shore postings, to claim boarding school allowances, irrespective of the locations of their families.

  Mr. Neubert
  The total cost of boarding school allowance for Royal Navy personnel is estimated at £24 million for the financial year 1989–90, based on the number of personnel who have drawn the allowance in the past. No reduction has been assumed for the future since it is expected that the great majority of claimants, including those on shore postings, will comply with the new family mobility conditions.

  Royal Naval Officers (Travel)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it would cost to restore first class travel warrants to Royal Naval officers on the scale prevailing before the 1988 review of allowances.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since facilities for first class duty travel remain unaltered, it is assumed that my hon. Friend is concerned with first class leave travel. The restoration of this facility to eligible officers of the armed forces as a whole would cost an estimated £820,000 of which the Royal Navy's share is approximately £165,000.

  "Who Framed Colin Wallace"
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish an inquiry into the evidence presented in the book entitled "Who Framed Colin Wallace", by Mr. Paul Foot, that members of the Army information services(a) planted hoax bombs, (b) masqueraded as members of paramilitary groups and (c) carried and possessed captured terrorist weapons and explosives.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has anything to add to his answer to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller),Official Report, column 707, 20 July 1988, in the light of information in the book, -Who Framed Colin Wallace", regarding the address to which the alleged information policy document was delivered.

  Mr. Neubert
  The answer referred to by the hon. Member stated that a classified document was delivered by Mr. Wallace to the London home of a journalist on The Times. The document was in fact left by Mr. Wallace at the Northern Ireland address of the journalist.

  Exercise Wintex-Cimex
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons have been learned from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercise, Wintex-Cimex; how many British service personnel took part and of what ranks; and if he will make a statement.
  126
  Mr. Neubert
  Exercise Wintex-Cimex was the tenth in a series of NATO-wide command post exercises conducted by Alliance members. The exercise took place from 24 February to 9 March 1989. Its objective was to test command, control and consultation plans and procedures and to exercise the appropriate crisis management machinery which would be used in the defence of NATO countries in times of international tension or war. This was successfully achieved. Detailed assessment and evaluation of all aspects of the exercise are currently being carried out.

  Though it is not our practice to comment in detail on such matters, all the indications are that useful lessons will have been learnt and that considerable value and experience was gained by those taking part. There was widespread military participation from the chiefs of staff downwards, but information on the numbers of British service participants in total or by rank is not available and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Clayton (Overflying)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why, on 23 May, there was a continuous day-long succession of military jet aircraft overflying the village of Clayton in the constituency of Don Valley; and if lie will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The amount of flying activity in particular areas is influenced by several factors, some of which are unpredictable. These include the weather, the location of major exercises and the availability of range and other facilities. On this occasion however, there is no indication that there was an unusual level of activity in the relevant area. As far as low flying is concerned, the aim remains to spread the training as widely and evenly as possible throughout the entire country to ensure that, as far as practicable, no area receives an undue share.

  Army Quarters, Hampshire
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings in Hampshire owned by his Department for use as army quarters have been offered for sale; and, of these, how many have been sold.

  Mr Neubert
  A total of 105 Army married quarters in Hampshire were offered for sale in the financial year 1987–88 and two in 1988–89. All have now been sold. Since 1 April 1989 one further Army married quarter has been offered for sale.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department for use as army quarters are currently unoccupied and surplus to requirements(a) in Hampshire and (b) in the Romsey and Waterside constituency.

  Mr. Neubert
  (a) In Hampshire, as at 31 March 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, out of a total stock of 4,622 Army married quarters 620 were unoccupied, of which 154 have been identified as surplus to requirements. These figures exclude the Tidworth estates, where the county boundary runs through the camp and a split by county is not readily available.

  (b) In the Romsey and Waterside constituency, as at 31 March 1989, out of a total stock of 349 Army married quarters 77 were unoccupied, of which 10 had been identified as surplus to requirements.

  Plessey plc
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he proposes to ensure continued effective competition among defence suppliers in the event that, following the proposed acquisition of the Plessey company by GEC/Siemens, these Plessey business areas become wholly-owned subsidiaries of the German company, Siemens.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD's procurement policy will continue to be based on the maximum possible use of competition, involving not only the companies that would result from a merger if it took place, but other defence suppliers. Where the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report has identified specific adverse effects resulting from the proposed merger, it has recommended undertakings to secure a remedy. These are currently under negotiation.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being sought to satisfy United Kingdom national security requirements in the event that, following the acquisition of Plessey by GEC and Siemens, Plessey radar and Plessey defence systems become wholly-owned subsidiaries of the German company, Siemens.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence gave evidence to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry on the security issues raised by the proposed merger. The MMC recognised the MOD's concerns in their recommendation that national security undertakings as to the ownership and management of certain activities had to be secured to remedy the adverse effect of the merger. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry placed responsibility on the MOD to secure these undertakings. Negotiations are proceeding, and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking, in view of the highly integrated nature of Plessey's research facilities, to ensure that GEC does not exercise influence over Plessey's radar and defence systems businesses in the event that they succeed in acquiring the Plessey company.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report recommended, inter alia, that GEC should undertake not to acquire any interest in or influence or control over the management of the Plessey radar and defence systems businesses. The Office of Fair Trading is currently negotiating to this end, consulting the Ministry of Defence as necessary.

  Belize
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefit in training British forces obtain from being stationed in Belize; and what is his assessment of their value.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The commitment to Belize provides an opportunity for units and equipment to be tested in a demanding environment. Advantage is taken of the possibilities for jungle and adventure training, and field firing practice, whenever possible. Training is conducted 128
  jointly by ground, air and naval forces, and with the Belize defence force. These facilities are a valuable by-product of the Belize commitment.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to make changes in the commitment of British forces to Belize.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British forces are in Belize at the request of the Belize Government, and will remain for an appropriate period to assist with that country's external defence and the training of the Belize defence force. This remains the basis of the Belize commitment.

  Headquarter Contracts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the reasons for the sevenfold increase in the level of payments for headquarter contracts awarded by his Department to British Telecommunications plc in the two years to 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: There has not been the significant increase in the actual level of payments to British Telecommunications plc which the answers to the hon. Member's previous questions might imply.

  During the period covered by the replies, changes were introduced into Departmental accounting arrangements which brought more payments to British Telecommunications plc into the ambit of the headquarters payment process. On a comparable basis payments in 1985–86 would have been some £50 million.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, regarding storage of radioactive waste for which there is presently no disposal site available, whether the nuclear installations inspectorate is required to licence storage sites operated by the Ministry of Defence or by sub-contractors to the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  A site owned and operated by the Ministry of Defence requires no licensing (although, as in all these matters, Ministers are able to give assurances that such a site would be constructed and operated under conditions no less stringent than those imposed on licensed sites). If a site is operated by contractors to MoD, whether or not it is owned by MoD, licensing is required.

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government expect to achieve the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. gross national product for overseas aid.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government accept this target in principle but like previous Administrations and many other donors are not able to set a date for achieving it. Progress towards it must depend upon developments in the economy and other claims on our resources. The aid programme is now growing in real terms and its quality is high.

  Single European Act
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will present proposals to the Madrid European Council about the volume and nature of the directives stemming from the Single European Act.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so, but I do expect the European Council in Madrid to review progress on completion of the single market.

  Nicaraguan President
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent meeting with President Ortega of Nicaragua, she discussed the role to be played by the non-aligned movement in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation treaty at its fourth review conference in 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Nigerian President
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during the recent visit of the President of Nigeria, she discussed the ways in which the nuclear non-proliferation treaty can be strengthened at its fourth review conference in 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Israeli Prime Minister
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during the visit of the Prime Minister of Israel to the United Kingdom on 21–22 May, she raised the questions of(a) the possibility of Israel signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and (b) the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation in the middle east.

  The Prime Minister
  No, but we have raised this issue regularly with the Government of Israel.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on her meeting with the Prime Minister of the state of Israel on 22 May.

  The Prime Minister
  My meeting with Mr. Shamir was held in a friendly spirit reflecting the good relations between Britain and Israel. We discussed Arab-Israel matters, other regional issues and bilateral questions. I welcomed his proposals for elections in the occupied territories as a useful step forward but emphasised the need for an understanding on a solution based on territory for peace.

  London Traffic
  Mr. Tebbit
  To ask the Prime Minister who has overall responsibility for the expedition of London's traffic.

  The Prime Minister
  Responsibility rests with the Secretary of State for Transport, the London local authorities and the police.

  The Secretary of State is the highway authority for trunk roads in London. At the request of the London local authorities he is also responsible for London's urban traffic control systems and all London's traffic lights. The local authorities are the highway and traffic authorities for local roads in their areas. The Metropolitan and City of London police are responsible for the enforcement of traffic and parking laws, and deal with incidents arising from traffic control.

  War Widows (Housing Benefit)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the arrangements for disregarding war widows' pensions for housing benefit purposes are the same in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The housing benefit scheme for England, Scotland and Wales has a statutory disregard, currently set at £5 a week, of any war disablement or war widow's pension, and local authorities have discretion to enhance this disregard. The separate housing benefit scheme in Northern Ireland has a statutory disregard of all such pensions.

  Political Clubs
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the use by Government agencies of premises located in political clubs; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Government Departments should not use premises located in political clubs for official purposes unless no suitable alternative is available. Non-departmental public bodies and Government contractors are responsible for their own operational arrangements.

  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the number of disabled persons employed by(a) the Cabinet Office, and (b) at 10 Downing street; what these figure are as a percentage of the total work force; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There are 16 registered disabled persons employed by the Cabinet Office, which represents approximately 1 per cent. of the total work force, and none at 10 Downing street. The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer, and continually seeks to encourage the employment of disabled people.

  Green Issues
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment she has made of the need to set up a new department concerned with green issues; what discussions she has had on this matter; and when they were held.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Environment has lead responsibility for environmental issues. I have no present plans to set up a new department to deal with such issues.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.
  131
  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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Petitions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of public petitions presented in each session since 1970.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Session

  Number of petitions

  1970–71

  8

  1971–72

  21

  1972–73

  25

  1973–74

  6

  1974

  27

  1974–75

  12

  1975–76

  46

  1976–77

  61

  1977–78

  24

  1978–79

  6

  1979–80

  7

  1980–81

  29

  1981–82

  27

  1982–83

  29

  1983–84

  732

  1984–85

  1,059

  1985–86

  516

  1986–87

  108

  1987–88

  356

  11988–89

  94

  1 To 26 May 1989.

  Private Members' Bills
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish in the Official Report a list of private Members' Bills where a Division took place on Second Reading, and where the Bill subsequently did not receive Royal Assent in each Session since 1970.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  1971–72

  Care of the Elderly Bill1

  1972–73

  Penalties for Murder Bill2

  Council House (Tenant's Representation) Bill

  132
  1974

  Companies Bill1

  1974–75

  Abortion (Amendment) Bill

  1976–77

  Abortion (Amendment) Bill

  Council Tenants' Charter Bill2

  Pre-Release Hostels for Prisoners Bill2

  1977–78

  Employment Protection Bill

  Employment Protection (Amendment) Bill

  Post Office Workers (Industrial Action) Bill

  1978–79

  Employment Opportunities (Small Businesses) Bill

  1979–80

  Abortion (Amendment) Bill

  Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill

  1982–83

  Shops Bill2

  1983–84

  Sex Equality Bill2

  House Buyers Bill

  1984–85

  Unborn Children (Protection) Bill

  1985–86

  Obscene Publications (Protection of Children Etc.) (Amendment) Bill

  1986–87

  Free Television Licences for Pensioners Bill2

  Obscene Publications Bill

  1988–89

  Protection of Official Information Bill2

  Abortion (Amendment) Bill

  1 fewer than 40 Members voting

  2 negatived on a Division.

  Hand-delivered Items
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will end the practice whereby hand-delivered items to the Palace of Westminster have to bear postage stamps.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Under the existing regulations one unstamped letter may be accepted from a Stranger, on a sitting day, for delivery to a right hon. or hon. Member. I have no plans to change these arrangements at present. However, if my hon. Friend has any proposals in mind, may I suggest that, in the first instance, he contacts the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the number of schools which have opted for grant-maintained status.
  134
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications have been received by his Department from schools wishing to become grant-maintained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern):My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have accepted an Honorary Fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. The diploma ceremony will take place in Edinburgh on Friday, 9th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 9th June.

ILO Conventions: Alleged UK Breaches
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, I have been requested and authorised to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations committee responsible for employment matters, has held Her Majesty's Government to be in breach of normal conventions on eight counts, and if so, what they are doing about it.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the United Kingdom reports at specified intervals on the conventions of the International Labour Organisation which it has ratified. Following these reports and other documentation such as criticisms from trade unions, the Committee of Experts has questioned aspects of the United Kingdom's application of various conventions. The United Kingdom Government will be responding to these points.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Committee of Experts has done more than that? It has stated that the Government are in breach of eight specific conventions: on the GCHQ unionisation, the teachers' negotiations, sympathetic strikes, dismissals for breach of contract and a series of other issues. We are already behind Libya and South Africa. Unless the Government are prepared to do something about this we shall take our place with Chile, Haiti and Saudi Arabia.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Lord paints a rather pessimistic picture. The one matter that the ILO committee fully recognises is that these are complex legal issues. The Government of the United Kingdom are fully confident that we have in no way breached Convention No. 87, or indeed Convention No. 93, which is the other convention referred to.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is an extremely serious element to this Question; namely, that there are a number of communist and fascist type countries which would find nothing good to be said about the ILO? Does he also agree that, if a nation pretends to support the ILO and then cheats, that is almost as deplorable?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord that nations should not cheat or be seen to be cheating with regard to the ILO. Fortunately Her Majesty's Government are in a very strong position because our record on employment matters is extremely good. I remind the noble Lord of some of the Government's reforms on industrial relations and trade union law since 1979 which have contributed to the significant improvement in our country's economic performance and growth of jobs in recent years. The results are apparent in the immense improvement to our country's reputation overseas, not least with investors and potential investors.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, what do the Government intend to do about the lapses that have been reported? Do Her Majesty's Government intend to put these matters right?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, will the noble Lord repeat the report that he has just mentioned?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the report indicates that there have been several indications where Her Majesty's Government have not supported the International Labour Organisation's rules on those eight counts. Now that they are aware that these lapses exist, will Her Majesty's Government be putting matters right to erase the almost bad name that we are building up for ourselves in the free world?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, as I said in my earlier remarks, Her Majesty's Government will be responding in detail in due course to the ILO.
Lord Bruce of Donington: When, my Lords?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, "when" is always a good word to interject. My understanding is that our response, in writing, will probably be timed for our next report on the convention concerned.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to the Government's employment policy leading to a successful economic performance. Do a balance of payments deficit of £15 billion and interest rates of 14 per cent. denote success?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I was referring to employment matters. I have given an indication of the overall and consistent success that we have had. The noble Lord may enjoy referring to some difficulties about which we all know. However, I have every confidence—and I am sure that the majority of your Lordships' House will share that confidence—that these matters will be solved before too long.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the breaches alleged are of provisions that are complex and technical and that there is no substantive derogation from the main provisions of the ILO Accord?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am always very happy indeed to have support from my noble friend. I thank him for backing my earlier remarks about the complex legal issues.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Earl cannot get away with that, can he? The fact is that the Government made representations to the Committee of Experts, which turned the Government down. It has considered the Government's case and has turned them down. The matter will now be referred to the annual conference of the ILO. If the ILO turns the Government down, will they act?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the International Labour Organisation's conference opens in Geneva tomorrow, Wednesday, 7th June. One of its committees is the committee on the application of conventions and recommendations. It discusses the experts' report and is likely to debate some of the eight criticisms. The United Kingdom will respond to all the criticisms in writing, as I said earlier, probably when we submit our next report on the applicable convention.

Advance Factories: Northern Region
2.43 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to increase the number of advance factories in the northern region.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, in the last financial year English Estates spent over £16 million in the northern region on the provision of industrial premises. A further substantial programme is planned for this year. But the Government cannot be the only provider of industrial premises. The strong demand for industrial space at rising rental levels should also encourage renewed private sector provision wherever possible in the assisted areas, thereby promoting the creation of a properly functioning property market.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that when he answers the questions I ask—as I do quite frequently, as he is aware—on the northern region the information he provides is invariably different from that which is provided from the region itself? Is he aware that the Question I asked today is based on information I have received from the Northern Development Company and the Northern Regional Councils Association, organisations I know he holds in high regard? They are saying that there is a great
720
need for further provision of advance factories. Will he bear in mind that the northern region still has by far the highest unemployment rate of mainland Britain?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and I are discussing two sides of the same coin. I welcome the fact that there is increased demand for industrial accommodation in the North-East of England. It is a sign that industrial recovery is accelerating there, but if the Government were to be the only provider of industrial accommodation in the North-East the pace of that expansion would be dictated by the rate at which English Estates could build new industrial premises.
We have followed a policy over the last two years, as the industrial recovery has proceeded, for English Estates to retreat from those areas where demand is such that the private sector will come back to fill that demand. This year alone, 1988–89, we are seeing a substantial increase of some £16·2 million being spent by English Estates in the northern region, and this coming year the amount will be £19·3 million. I suspect that the demand for industrial accommodation is for tens of millions of pounds above that. That is something that the private sector should and will provide.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Centre for Local Economic Strategies in Manchester complains that the responsibility for providing factory space for incoming investors in the North is diffused among a number of bodies? What is the role of the DTI in co-ordinating that?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the DTI has no responsibility for co-ordinating the provision of factory accommodation in the private sector. I welcome the fact that a number of bodies provide industrial accommodation. The longer we see government as being the only provider of industrial accommodation the more we shall retard the development of the North-East or the northern region itself.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that some of us find it very interesting that when there is credit to be claimed, the Government claim the credit for the northern region, but if anything is not quite right the Minister places the onus on something else, in this case the private sector? How much importance does the Secretary of State place on the quality of such buildings? Is he aware that the latest report on this matter, when locational and environmental factors are taken into account, shows that only 30 out of 239 individual premises are not felt to be of high quality?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am always suspicious of such surveys because they invariably contain subjective definitions of high quality. Over the last 33 months I have seen the overall fall in unemployment being led by the fall in unemployment in the northern region. I am fully

721
aware that general unemployment still remains high, but it is a vastly different picture today. What we have seen in parts of the North-East is a recovery making it more like the rest of the country. English Estates will continue to provide more factories in areas where the private sector will not normally go. That seems to the Government to be its proper function.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, with the choking up of the availability of employment, labour and factory space and the very high costs in the South of England, is not this the greatest opportunity for the North, where sites will be cheaper and labour more available to solve its obviously serious problems?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, as we have seen over the last two or three years, property values rise in the southern part of our country. We have seen employment rise and costs escalate to a level at which employment has been moving steadily northwards. That is evidence of the market at work. Now as one travels north in our country one finds that the employment divisions which used to exist between the North and the South are steadily eroding. That is something that all in your Lordships' House should welcome.

Electricity: Cross-Channel Link
2.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements are being made to increase the capacity of the electricity link between the United Kingdom and France.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, there are no present plans to increase the capacity of the cross-Channel link. It will be for the industry to decide whether it wishes to increase trading links with France.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. While no doubt this link has been most useful in helping at peak hours, can my noble friend confirm that the electricity received at this end has been cheap, bearing in mind that about 70 per cent. of the electricity generated in France comes from nuclear sources, much of it from PWR reactors?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that electricity imported from France is competitive with that produced in large coal-fired power stations in the UK. That is in part due to the fact that it is an interruptible supply. However, the detailed pricing arrangements are commercially confidential to the utilities concerned. I emphasise that the link is used to supply electricity not only at peak times but at other times as well.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that with the opening of the Torness power
722
station in Scotland the present power line capacity for exporting to England is inadequate? That prevents the Scottish electricity authorities exporting electricity as cheap as the French and it prevents the English consumer taking advantage of the Scottish enterprise.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is not the same question as that on the Order Paper. However, I am aware that investigations are being carried out on routeing and any necessary reinforcement which may be required to upgrade the Scottish inter-connector to provide for a potential increase in capacity.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the amount of electricity supplied by France compares with the amount of electricity which Britain has supplied to France?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the balance is in favour of imports from France. In 1986–7 we exported 188 gigawatt hours.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, are the South and South-Eastern Electricity Boards negotiating with Electricité de France for a new link after privatisation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the current contract between the CEGB and Electricité de France is due to expire at the end of this year. That contract is currently being renegotiated by the national grid division of the CEGB. I am unaware of other separate negotiations, but it is open to the industry to negotiate direct.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much it has cost this country to import electricity from France?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, no, not without notice.

UK Productivity: Comparisons
2.53 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
How absolute levels of United Kingdom productivity compare with those in Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the April 1989 Treasury economic progress report shows that output per hour worked in the UK economy in 1986 was about 50 per cent. higher than in Japan and about 5 per cent. lower than in Germany.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer which must please everyone in this country, in particular entrepreneurs. Can he advise how such a dramatic change has taken place? The debate instigated by my noble friend Lord Joseph last year on productivity and jobs indicated a differential of about 25 per cent. between the productivity of this country and West Germany.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there is no doubt that during the decades after the war the productivity of the United Kingdom was such that we were consistently bottom of the top G7 countries in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 1980s we have been top and we are catching up on many of the years of decline. If my noble friend were to ask me for the reason, I suspect that it may be some of the practices referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in the first Question this afternoon.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are aware of the Treasury's latest figures. Of course, one possibility is that they are wrong. However, if we accept them, does the noble Lord have an explanation for the fact that we have an enormous balance of payments deficit, including an even larger balance of trade deficit, while the Germans and Japanese have a massive balance of payments surplus? Does the noble Lord or the Treasury have any explanation of how that is compatible with the alleged figures?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is a distinguished economist, and surely he knows that one cannot go around comparing apples with oranges. However, the noble Lord queries the Treasury's figures. It is OECD data which shows that if one takes the GDP per hour worked in the United Kingdom at 100, the figure in Japan is 67 and in Germany it is 105. They are OECD figures. If one takes the GDP per head of population in the United Kingdom at 100, then for Japan it is 106, and for Germany it is 110. We have a change of direction; the United Kingdom is catching up.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I ask a genuine question to seek information. Are the figures relating to Japan based on the Japanese manufacturing industry or do they include the large number of small industry and craft-based workshops in Japan? In those one would expect productivity rates to be very low.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If one looks at the output per person employed in the manufacturing industry, isolating it to the manufacturing industries only, then during the 1960s the United Kingdom output per person increased by 3 per cent. per annum and that of Japan by 8·8 per cent. per annum. During the 1970s we were bottom of the growth list of the G7 countries. During the 1970s we were at 1·6 per cent., while Japan had fallen to 5·3 per cent. We continued to be at the bottom. During the 1980s we are at 5·2 per cent. while Japan has fallen to 3·1 per cent. Now we are top. We have a long way to go to climb back but we are doing so.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that his figures clearly demonstrate the remarkable success story because record productivity has grown in parallel with a record fall in unemployment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, during the past 33 months we have seen unemployment
724
consistently fall in the United Kingdom. Today it stands at 6·5 per cent. Compared with the other major economies, in the European Community, with the exception of Germany, we are by far the lowest. Indeed, there may be a dispute about Germany's position.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to return to my theme. I am well aware that people in the Treasury can do elementary arithmetic, and no doubt the figures are as they stand. However, the fact remains that before the noble Lord goes around trumpeting this success he must look at the whole picture and answer the question that I asked. Will he comment on the fact that the latest Treasury figures show that our productivity has ceased to grow?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the measure of productivity over the whole economy is always a difficult matter. I was asked for productivity in the manufacturing industry to be isolated. However, if one looks at the whole economy, which is a different and more difficult figure to measure, the United Kingdom stands at 2·5 per cent. growth during the 1980s. It is well ahead of that of the United States at 1·2 per cent.; of Germany at 1·8 per cent.; of France at 2 per cent.; of Italy at 2 per cent.; or of Canada at 1·4 per cent. However, I agree that it is beneath that of Japan which stands at 2·9 per cent. for the whole economy. At the end of the day the growth in productivity in this country is responsible for the massive increase in the number of jobs.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the important point to make is that the growth rate can be expected to be higher when one starts from a very low base? Does he also agree that one may give the wrong impression if one takes productivity rates year by year and compares country with country? When you start from a low base it is far easier to have a high growth rate than if you start from a high base.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness's words "a very low base". Undeniably, the productivity is lower than that of Germany. We fell back during the decades after the war. However, it is not so different from that of France, although we are still beneath that figure. The point is that we are catching up. I notice that the Treasury paper refers to an entry made by Samuel Pepys in his diary on 13th February, 1665. He said:
"How despicably they speak of us for using so many hands more to do anything than they do—they closing a cable with 20, that we use 60 men upon".
This debate has been going on for at least 330 years. At the end of the day it is jobs that matter and we are demonstrating that our policy works.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the only practice to which I referred was the practice of the Government in breaking conventions and not owning up? To that I now add the practice of blinding us with history.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not sure whether one calls the decade of the 1970s history. It is very vivid in the recollection of many of your Lordships.

Business
2.59 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the events in China and the implications for Hong Kong.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Water Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Licensing (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Debates, 21st June
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Ewart-Biggs and the Baroness Turner of Camden set down for 21st June shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill
3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The National Rivers Authority]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) The functions assigned to the Authority shall include responsibility for the prevention and reduction of pollution in or arising from controlled waters in England and Wales (including coastal waters and adjacent relevant territorial waters) in accordance with the provisions of this Part and Part III below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the Water Bill after a very short gap which I hope has been enjoyable as well as profitable for your Lordships in all parts of the House. We return at once to what is recognised by everybody to be one of the most important issues facing this country; that
hall apply to
is, the question of water quality. I refer not so much to drinking water because that issue, if by no means resolved, was debated to some effect by your Lordships' Committee but raClause 1 [The National Rivers Authority]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) The functions assigned to the Authority shall include rent to our beaches.
Your Lordships' Committee decided last month that it was appropriate to have on the face of the Bill a commitment that the Government have a timetable for adhering to European Community directives on the quality of drinking water. The purpose of today's amendment is to secure that the Government have an obligation to conform with any relevant directive of the European Community on the quality of water used for bathing and other forms of recreation. In introducing this amendment, I should have said that I am also speaking to Amendment No. 71 which covers the point to which I have just referred.
The Bill, as amended in Committee and following its passage through another place, still contains no clear statement of the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority for the control of pollution. Such a general statement of its obligation should appear in Part I of the Bill. A general statement in respect of its recreational and environmental obligations does appear. It was the subject of considerable debate in Committee and no doubt will be the subject of further debate on Report. To balance that very proper general statement of environmental and recreational obligations there should be a general statement of the obligations of. The purpose of today's amendment is to secure that the Government have an obligation to conform with any relevant directive of the European Community on the quality of water used for bathing and other forms of recreation. In introducing this amendment, I should have said that I am also speaking to Amendment No. 71 which covers the point to which I have just referred.
The Bill, as amended in Committee and following its passage through another place, still contains no clear statement of the responsitract an incurable disease. The stench from those rivers is such that one cannot build anywhere near them. As I say, this is not an academic or legalistic point but a point of such seriousness that it deserves the same kind of consideration which the Bill properly gives to other environmental factors.
As the Bill stands it is almost impossible to say that the NRA has any clear and unambiguous duty to prevent and reduce pollution. I say "reduce pollution" deliberately because the situation in many of the waters for which the National Rivers Authority will be responsible is such that the reduction of pollution is absolutely essential. There is a curious and apparently ill-thought-out division of responsibility between the Secretary of State and the National Rivers Authority. The Secretary of State has responsibility for classifying rivers and setting water quality objectives but the National Rivers Authority produces the environmental codes and has all the responsibilities under Clause 8 of

727
protecting and promoting the environment and recreation. What is never clear is a single point where the buck stops. That is what Amendment No. 1 provides. The amendment is also an essential precondition of Amendment No. 71 which requires that the National Rivers Authority shall have responsibility for,
"the maintenance and improvement in accordance with any relevant Directive of the European Community of the quality of waters used for bathing and other forms of recreation".
We know that there has been a letter from the European Environment Commissioner to the Government threatening to take action on some of our beaches. I have not seen the letter. I should be grateful if the Minister in replying could tell us what it contains. I understand that unless something drastic is done about beaches at Southport, Formby and Blackpool, action will be taken against the British Government. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether that is the case and whether there are other beaches against which action is threatened by the European Community.
Many figures have been floating around in the past 36 hours about the quality of our beaches. There has been correspondence between my honourable friend Dr. Cunningham and the Minister for water in another place. I have had the pleasure of reading the letter from Mr. Howard to Dr. Cunningham. I do not believe that its tone is appropriate to be read in the civilised surroundings of your Lordships' House. Clearly, what Dr. Cunningham said at his press conference yesterday has touched the Government very much on the raw. They are aware that something drastic has to be done; even Mr. Howard recognises that towards the end of his extended vituperation.
We have evidence that the beaches of this country fail to reach the standards of the European directives. In some cases the figures are very good. For example, in Yorkshire only 5 per cent. of beaches fail to reach the European Community directive standard. That means in fact only one beach. However, in the North-West there are 27 beaches which have failed; and that means that 82 per cent. of beaches failed to reach the standard. The figures cover a whole range. Admittedly there are very few beaches concerned. The Thames Water Authority has two beaches and both have failed to reach the European Community directive standard.
The Minister of State for water yesterday took great pride in announcing this year's blue flag scheme for clean beaches. Let us be clear: clean beaches includes the cleanliness of the beach from litter, which is the responsibility of local authorities, as well as the cleanliness of the water. Therefore it is not a simple case of the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority. The situation is that a very low proportion indeed of our beaches qualified for the European blue flag, and the director of the blue flag scheme has said that if the new standards which have been announced by the European Commission are imposed none of our beaches will qualify for the blue flag next year. Therefore there cannot be any doubt that there is much more work to be done on improving the quality of our river water and inhe 728
particular improving the quality of our bathing water.
I could go on at some length about the dispute on the use of outfalls into the sea for the disposal of raw sewage. The Government seem to think that provided there is a long outfall there is no real problem. Mr. Howard seems to think that unless water is so evidently disgusting that you would not want to swim in it, it is perfectly safe to swim in. I can only say that that is not the view of international experts on water pollution. They take the view that even with long outfalls the micro-organisms contained in raw sewage are damaging to health and that the significant proportion of our sewage disposal which takes place through outfalls to the sea ought not to take place. I believe that they are right and that the time will come when it will be universally recognised that disposal of raw sewage off our beaches is not an acceptable policy and not an acceptable health risk.
We have therefore a very serious problem whichever set of figures one takes. This Bill, although it is not intended for the purpose, with the establishment of the National Rivers Authority provides an opportunity for the Government, if they wish, to take their responsibilities seriously. It provides the Government with an opportunity to give the National Rivers Authority—the establishment of which has been welcomed on all sides of the House—a general responsibility for preventing and reducing pollution in our controlled waters. I urge the House to accept this amendment. I urge the Government to accept it. If necessary, I shall ask the House to approve the amendment, which would, together with Amendment No. 71, give real effect to that aim and real assurance to our people that our rivers and beaches are safe. We have no such assurance from the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is inviting us to do something that we have already done. He is inviting us to put into the beginning of the Bill a responsibility—a very laudable responsibility—for the National Rivers Authority on the control of pollution which is set out very fully indeed in Part III of the Bill, and in particular in Chapter I of Part III, on page 111. Indeed, the noble Lord's own amendment refers to Part III and states that the National Rivers Authority shall perform the duties which arise under Part III. The amendment would be an unnecessary piece of repetition.
We can all rejoice that for the first time we are to have a National Rivers Authority in this country. We should also rejoice that certainly in 19½ pages of the Bill the duties of the authority and other duties in relation to pollution are set out in very great detail. Quite frankly, it would be an appalling excess of zeal, to put it as kindly as one can, if we accepted this amendment as well.
The noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 71, which is an amendment to Clause 8. I am a little surprised that we are being invited to consider that

729
amendment in connection with Amendment No. 1 because it raises a somewhat different and more detailed point. Frankly, that is a point which I would rather leave to be dealt with by my noble friends on the Front Bench, either on this amendment or on Amendment No. 71 if it is taken at a later stage. However, although one always applauds zeal, this really is excessive.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I agree with the last part of what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton but I shall deal later with the first part of his comments. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wanted to group Amendment No. 71 with Amendment No. 1. That is entirely his privilege and I am happy to deal with that grouping, but I agree with my noble friend that Amendment No. 71 is not consequential on Amendment No. 1.
The Government yield to no one in their commitment to controlling and reducing pollution in our rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. The evidence for that is before us and is irrefutable. It is there in this Bill, in the complete overhaul of pollution control machinery in the establishment of the NRA; and it is in Part III, in the complete and indeed dramatic extension of the legislation for controlling pollution. Throughout the Committee stage the party opposite could come forward with not one single proposal for major extension to those powers. The fact is that what is in the Bill in respect of pollution control is comprehensive and complete.
What then are we to make of these amendments? I shall deal with the amendment in respect of bathing waters in a moment, but let me deal first with the main amendment before us. This does two things. First, it singles out pollution for special mention as a function of the NRA. Secondly it enshrines controlling and reducing as the purpose to be pursued. The first is mistaken and the second unnecessary.
Let me deal first with the special mention of pollution control as an NRA function. The reason we should reject this is because it unbalances the overall design of the Bill and involves a complete misunderstanding of the nature of management of our water environment and the role of the NRA within it. The essence of the NRA is that we are concentrating within it the whole range of functions related to the water environment, which are inextricably linked. The fact is that one cannot separate water quality management from the management of water resources. Dilution is the essential factor linking the two, for the quality of our rivers abstractions is as important as discharges. Nor can one separate these matters from the management of drainage and flood prevention works.
e us. This does two things. First, it singles out pollution for special mention as a function of the NRA. Secondly it enshrines controlling and reducing as the purpose to be pursued. The first is mistaken and the second unnecessary.
Let me deal first withapproach. It is inconsistent with the philosophy of water environment management notej 730
use it unbalances the overall design of the Bill and involves a complete misunderstanding of the nature of management of our wat
Let me now turn to the second feature of the amendment, for it may be that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is more concerned to insert in the Bill the commitment to prevention and reduction of pollution. If so, that is equally unnecessary for reasons which were considered at length in Committee. My noble friend Lord Renton has just reminded the House that your Lordships will know that all the powers on pollution control in Chapter I of Part III are deliberately and specifically geared to the maintenance and improvement of the quality of controlled waters, and that is inescapably to the reduction of pollution.
How does it achieve that? Clause 104 provides for the Secretary of State to set water quality objectives, but to do so for the purpose of maintaining and improving water quality. Clause 105 then requires the Secretary of State and the NRA to exercise all their powers and duties in the relevant chapter of the Bill so as to achieve those objectives so far as it is practicable to do so. So this pan of the Bill is a carefully constructed whole. It sets out the duty; namely, the maintenance and improvement of water quality. It makes clear how, through the quality objectives, that duty is to be given real substance and meaning. Finally it requires that all pollution control powers be used to achieve these. This is a complete and full framework, providing the critical linkages which have been absent in previous legislation. I suggest to the House that there also is nothing in this aspect of the amendment which is necessary or desirable.
Nor is there anything of substance in the second amendment which would add to Clause 8 a duty to promote the quality of bathing waters. The reason why is this is so simple and goes back to the points that I have already made. First, let me assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that coastal waters are among the controlled waters for which objectives for the maintenance and improvement of water quality are to be set and for which all the powers in Chapter I of Part III of the Bill are to be applied. Inescapably, therefore, the NRA already has under the Bill a duty to promote the quality of bathing waters and of other waters and to do so for all the purposes, including recreation, to which those waters may be put. It goes without saying that in doing this we shall of course discharge our commitment under European Community directives.
From these detailed arguments let me turn to the wider canvas. It may be that the purpose of the amendment was simply to provide an occasion for us to debate pollution once more and to go over again matters not just from the Committee stage but from Second Reading. I must detain your Lordships a little to set the record straight on the quality of our rivers, estuaries and coastal waters, especially in view of the errors and distortions that the recent 36 hours, including some comment from the Labour Party, have brought forward on this issue. Perhaps I may emphasise some fundamental points.

731
The first concerns the actual state of our rivers and estuaries. These are not as good as any of us would like—of course they are not. But they never could be. They are of good and fair quality. Our rivers are among the cleanest of any in the European Community, with 95 per cent. in good or fair condition. But we want to improve them even further. And that is what much of this Bill is about.
e turn to the wider canvas. It may be that the purpose of the amendment was simply to provide an occasion for us to debate pollution once more and to go over again matters not just from the Committee stage but from Second Reading. I must detain your Lordships a little to set the record straight on the quality of our rivers, estuaries anAt this moment I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the third report from the Environmental Committee of another place in the Session 1986–87 on the pollution of rivers and estuaries. In particular I draw attention to paragraph 27:
"There are a number of reasons why water authority effluents fall short of the present consent standards. The most immediate reason is because from the mid-1970s until the early '80s there was a steady drop in investment by the water authorities in sewage and sewage disposal".
Chart 1 on the opposite page provides a graphic illustration of the desperate and detrimental cut in investment that the Labour Government undertook during their term of office. The fact is that available evidence suggests that since 1985 any such decline has been halted. There is no sound evidence that overall over the past decade the quality of our rivers and estuaries has declined. They remain good. But of course we want to improve them further and that is what much of this Bill is about.
I turn now to our beaches and coastal waters. Every year our 403 coastal bathing waters are tested to assess the water quality in relation to Community standards. In 1988, 67 per cent. of our identified bathing waters met the mandatory coliform standards, which is a marked improvement upon recent years. When the European Commission publishes the results of the 1987 survey of Community bathing waters, we would expect to be in the middle of the European league. We must remember that all popular coastal resorts in the United Kingdom are identified, whereas some other member states have been criticised by the Commission for identifying only waters which are guaranteed to meet the directive's standards and not identifying any which are known to be dirty. Others have not reported their results. We are undoubtedly doing better than many of the member states in upgrading our bathing waters.
Although the Commission has raised a number of complaints in respect of the application of the directive to the United Kingdom, it has, as far as we are aware, been satisfied with the detailed responses that we have sent. And it is worth noting that the Commission is pursuing complaints against five other member states over the implementation of the directive. Our story here is not one of failure but of vigorous and sustained improvement.
I met the Commissioner this morning for a long session at the department. I told him that I would
732
chase up what the Commission is doing to bring other member states up to the standards that we have reached and to provide information on the standards we have reached. Unfortunately we cannot get a fair comparison at the moment as regards what other states are doing because of the reasons that I have already given. I said that this was an unfair situation where Britain is producing all the information that is required whereas many other states are not.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, touched on the point of long sea outfalls. I was very surprised that, without any substantiating evidence, he totally rubbished the recent report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. That Royal Commission is highly respected throughout the world and it said that a long sea outfall discharging sewage was the best environmental option. I believe the point that the noble Lord made should be rephrased in this way. A long sea outfall will always be necessary regardless of whether you have primary, secondary and/or tertiary treatment of a sewage works on the coast. The question is whether it is better to put down that outfall the screened sewage that occurs in some cases at the moment or whether we put down a considerable amount of acid which is used in the secondary treatment and which is very harmful to marine life. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be aware, with his concern for the environment, that to put down chlorine or paracetic acid—which I believe is the other material used in cleansing sewage—is very detrimental to all forms of marine life.
Finally what of investment and resources? I remind the House that it was this Government who initiated and are carrying forward the enormous investment programme to restore the Mersey, which in its scale and significance must have few parallels anywhere in the world. And we have further announced a billion pound programme to overcome decades of neglect in our sewage treatment works. But it is not only in this respect that this Government have, by comparison with many of their predecessors, a proud record in this area. It shows itself quite as clearly in the area of legislation. It was, after all, this Government who between 1983 and 1987 implemented Part II of the Control of Pollution Act, enacted by a Labour Government in 1974, but their commitment to the environment then was such that they did not implement this important part of the Act.
In this Bill we now bring before the House perhaps the broadest and most substantial legislative measure for water pollution control ever undertaken. That is the background against which these amendments must be seen. I reiterate the points I made initially. These amendments are both unnecessary and undesirable. They are unnecessary because the Bill already ensures that control and reduction of pollution are among the functions of the authority for coastal waters as well as for the other controlled waters. They are unnecessary because it is the explicit duty of the Secretary of State and the NRA to use their powers for the purpose of improving water quality and only for that purpose. More than that, and for the first time, the Bill gives them the means to achieve it.

733
Finally, the amendment is undesirable because to single out in Clause 1 a specific function in isolation from all those other functions in the Bill to which control of water quality is inextricably linked is to undermine the essential integrated philosophy of water environment management developed over the past 20 years, of which the NRA is itself the culmination and to which the Bill before the House is a major contribution.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two strands to the Minister's reply, both of which seem to me to be unsatisfactory. The first is what one might kindly call architectural in the sense that it is concerned with the structure of the Bill. Any attempt to amend the Bill is criticised on architectural grounds rather than on the grounds of the substance of the amendments. I make no apology for seeking to bring into Part I of the Bill a general duty to control, prevent and reduce pollution in our waters. Such a general duty for recreational and environmental matters is contained in Part I. It is not contained in Clause 1, but the noble Lord, Lord Renton, seemed to think that it is adequate to have many specific duties in Part III. That is not the case for environmental duties and it should not be the case for the control of pollution.
The trouble with the Bill as it is constructed—I do not deny that there are complex linkages throughout the Bill; that is very clear—is that it does not set out in one place and in unambiguous terms the duty which ought to be the overriding duty of the National Rivers Authority to control and prevent pollution of our waters.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 105 he will see that it does just that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Clause 105 and the surrounding clauses contain a number of references to the duties of the National Rivers Authority. That is absolutely true. But the analogy I have made is with the environmental and recreational duties, which are treated as general duties of the National Rivers Authority and of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services. We are seeking to secure that the control of pollution is recognised as being of equal importance to those important recreational and environmental duties and is not relegated to Part III. That is the purpose of this part of our argument.
In the second part of his argument the Minister seeks by historical references to show that the Government's record on pollution is good. Let us start from common ground. We all agree that a great deal has still to be done. The Minister and Mr. Howard have said that and I am sure that my honourable friend would agree. We all agree that in past years no government, Labour or Conservative, paid as much attention to environmental matters as is paid now. In recent years the climate of opinion has changed dramatically. But it is not enough to pick out a period of years from the previous Labour Government or from the early years of the present
734
government to advance the argument that enough is being done now and that the Government's plans are satisfactory for our purpose.
Perhaps I may give a few examples of that, and I could give many more. The Minister repeated the argument made by Mr. Howard that the Labour Government had reduced expenditure on investment in sewerage. It is certainly true that between 1974 and 1979—the time when the oil crisis had caused economic problems in all developed countries of the world—investment in sewerage declined. However, the low level reached in 1979 was maintained and not increased by the Conservative Government for all but the past two years. In other words, for eight years of Conservative Government investment continued at the lowest level reached by the Labour Government. Until two years ago the average investment by the Labour Government was higher than the average investment by the Conservative Government.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord on that point. If he turns to the chart of the Select Committee's report he will quite clearly see that in 1980–81 the steep and almost straight decline in investment from 1974 onwards turns around and goes back up.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have the figures in front of me. If I have quoted them incorrectly I apologise. The fact remains that the average level of investment in the first five years—and almost certainly for longer than that—of the Conservative Government was lower than the average level of investment under the Labour Government. I do not think that the noble Earl will deny that side of it.
In order to show, or in order to purport to show, that our river quality is good the Minister said that 95 per cent. of our rivers are in good or fair condition. In writing to my honourable friend, Mr. Howard did not say that. He said that 95 per cent. of river length is in a good or fair condition, which is not the same thing at all. Of course a high proportion of river length upstream of residential or industrial development is of good or fair quality. That must be the case. The fact of the matter is that downstream, where large numbers of people live and where there is a large amount of industrial development, our rivers are simply not good enough. That is clear.
The Minister chose to refer to the mandatory coliform standard, one of the many standards controlled by the European Community directive. Two can play at that game. The Minister failed to tell us about pesticide residues in drinking water in the Thames Water Authority area. For Simazine, of the samples taken 100 per cent. failed; for Atrazine, 75 per cent. of the samples failed; and for Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, to which reference was made in Committee, 25 per cent. of the samples failed.
The Minister referred to long sea outfalls. I agree that there is no simple solution to this problem. I was referring to the disposal of raw sewage. It is certainly true that if one then insists on disposing of treated sewage, there are unfortunate side effects in

735
relation to acids getting out into the sea. That does not affect the fundamental point that is being made. This country is the only one in Europe which disposes of raw sewage on a significant scale into the sea. A high proportion of it goes through short sea outfalls which are undeniably damaging to health and to bathing water quality. Even the long sea outfalls have undesirable side effects.
Both on the architectural side and on the historical side the Government's analysis is partial and their conclusions are unjustified. The conclusion that we must reach from this debate is that the Government are not prepared to be committed to an overriding obligation to control pollution in controlled waters. That is the inescapable conclusion to which the House must come. It is on that basis that I seek the opinion of the House on the amendment.
3.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 132.

DIVISION NO 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Amherst, E.

Lockwood, B.

Ampthill, L.

Longford, E.

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Molloy, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mulley, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Nicol, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ogmore, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Parry, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Peston, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Phillips, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rochester, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

David, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Scanion, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Galpern, L.

Soper, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kagan, L.

Willis, L.

Kearton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kennet, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Allerton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Annaly, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Arran, E.

736

Balfour, E.

Joseph, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Birdwood, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bolton, L.

Layton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caccia, L.

Manton, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Carnock, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clinton, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Middleton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Morris, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Moyne, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Derwent, L.

Onslow, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Dundee, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Effingham, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Elibank, L.

Pender, L.

Elles, B.

Porritt, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Radnor, E.

Faithfull, B.

Reilly, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Foley, L.

Rugby, L.

Forbes, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Fortescue, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gainford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharpies, B.

Geddes, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Somers, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathspey, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Terrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Havers, L.

Thurlow, L.

Henley, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Ironside, L.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) In respect of any of the functions assigned or transferred to it, the authority may not subcontract any such function to any person, except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (regulations on contracting out of functions) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to

737
Amendment No. 21. In Committee we discussed the issue of what came to be known as the poacher and the game keeper; in other words, the issue of whether the National Rivers Authority could properly and effectively exercise its function if it had to subcontract some of the measurement activities and some of the research activities in particular which it has to undertake in order to control the activities of the water and sewerage undertakings to those very same water and sewerage undertakings.
We argued by way of amendments in Committee that it was not possible for the National Rivers Authority to do the job which it will have to do with the full independence which it will need if it is to be subject to the necessity to subcontract those very important activities to the bodies which it is responsible for controlling. A good deal of debate took place with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee, about those parts of the National River Authority functions which could properly be subcontracted and those which could not.
The argument put forward by the Government was that certainly at the outset it would not be possible for the National Rivers Authority to do without the research functions in particular—and the computing functions were also mentioned—of the regional water authorities and therefore of the successor water and sewerage undertakings.
A number of years were bandied about, but I believe that when the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, replied the ultimate figure was that for the first two years at any rate it would be necessary to sub-contract those functions to those bodies already doing the work because it would be impossible, or at least uneconomic and inefficient, to set up facilities to do the work completely separate from the new water and sewerage undertakings. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that the advisory committee felt that it should have access to the computers maintained by the plcs. He used the phrase "for a time". I do not know what he meant by "for a time", but he had a valid point when he said that, as he did when he referred to the plcs' laboratories.
We are not bringing back the original amendment, which sought to change at a stroke the responsibility for carrying out those laboratory and computing facilities. We are seeing that it does not continue for ever and that we do not have, for any longer than is strictly necessary or that the Secretary of State considers strictly necessary, the NRA being forced to sub-contract the work to those whom it has the responsibility of controlling.
The dangers of such sub-contracting were fairly obvious. I do not believe that they were seriously questioned in Committee. In that supervisory and regulatory work, samples have to be taken in accordance with proper scientific procedures. They may well be used in evidence in court if the NRA pursues its regulatory function to the ultimate degree of taking water and sewerage undertakers to court for any defects which it finds. The difficulty with
738
that is that the people who take the sample may well be called upon to give evidence. In effect, they will be called upon to give evidence against their own employer.
Perhaps they can erect Chinese Walls in their own minds. They will certainly act as honourably as they possibly can. I do not deny that they will do an honest job of representing the results of their scientific activities; but the fact remains that it is an unfair burden to place upon them, because inevitably their position as officers of the plcs (the water and sewerage undertakers) will be weakened if a significant part of their time is taken up by attacking their bosses on behalf of the NRA.
There is potential for a conflict of interest. That is why we have regulations. It is not fair to place that conflict of interests upon the heads of individual employees of the water and sewerage undertakings. The right thing to do is to resolve that conflict of interest as soon as possible by giving the NRA responsibility for carrying out its own scientific and sampling inquiries and computing activities.
We accept that there needs to be an introductory period. It is for that reason that the amendments are phrased as they are. The second amendment is a new clause after Clause 3. It specifies the regulations. The Secretary of State will have the power under the new clause to specify what functions shall be sub-contracted, because they need to be sub-contracted, and that,
"the transitional period shall be two years, or such other period as the Secretary of State may by Order specify".
That does not give an opportunity for the NRA or the water and sewerage undertakings to be forced into the absurd position of having to cease sub-contracting before it is economically sensible to do so. However, it says that there must be a time, which must be determined by the Secretary of State by order—in other words, by Parliament—when that dangerous and damaging mixing of the roles of poacher and gamekeeper comes to an end.
Our amendments answer the criticisms which were made of previous amendments in Committee. They are designed to do so, but they maintain the principle of separating the role of the poacher from that of the gamekeeper while yet retaining all possibilities for the NRA and the water and sewerage undertakings to continue with the existing arrangements while it is technically necessary for them to do so.
I hope the Government will feel, as I do, that this is a proper reaction to the debate which took place in Committee, and a proper matter on which they could advise the House, even if the wording of the amendment is not exactly right, that the principle behind it is a sound one. I believe it to be so. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is a sensible measure. It will give the NRA time in which to get its house in order. There will then be no mixing of the poacher and gamekeeper principle. The NRA should be independent in all its functions if it is to have the maximum effect. I therefore recommend that the amendment be seriously considered.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I take a completely contrary view. I think that it would be an obstacle to progress and achievement on the part of the NRA if we were to accept Amendments Nos. 2 and 21. We are building great hopes on what may be done by the NRA—the first body of its kind that we have had for all our rivers. It is given specific responsibilities under the Bill. They are clearly set out and I shall refer to them in a moment.
In order to discharge those responsibilities, it must either have a huge technical and practical operative staff of its own, so that it does everything by direct labour, or it must be free to employ various companies and agencies in order to do the work that it has to do. I shall give some examples by referring to Clause 8(4) where it says:
"Without prejudice to its other duties … it shall be the duty of the Authority, to such extent as it considers desirable, generally to promote"—
and we all want this—
"the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland waters and of land associated with such waters".
Under that heading it may wish to do some tree planting. It may wish to have some awful old tip or refuse dump cleared away. Is it to do it by direct labour itself or can it employ somebody else to do it? Surely it should be free. We then come to,
"the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on an aquatic environment".
That would be essentially technical work. There are experts in the laboratories of universities. I think particularly of the marine biology laboratory at Plymouth, where I twice went on a course, which would be most valuable in helping it; but that used to be (and I suppose that it still is) an independent agency and not a government one. In any event, there is a tendency for us to treat the various government agencies, like the National Environmental Research Council, as bodies which do things under contract. If these amendments were accepted the NERC would not be able to act unless regulations made by the Secretary of State had in some way enabled it to do so.
As we discussed on the last amendment, under Part III of the Bill and particularly Clause 105 the National Rivers Authority will have general duties as well as specific responsibilities with regard to pollution. In that connection we may find that the work required to be done is not such that we could expect the National Rivers Authority to keep a large staff all over the country in order to do it. It is bound to have to employ local people who would be able to carry out the work.
Perhaps I may go back to recreational facilities. Clause 8(4)(c) states that the authority is to promote,
"the use of such waters and land for recreational purposes".
That may sometimes mean—as, for example, on the River Nene at Peterborough—building a dam across a river and flooding meadows which are not useful for any other purpose so as to create a lake for recreational purposes. Is the authority to have the manual staff and all the equipment for doing that itself by direct labour? No, quite frankly, this is misconceived.
In any event, one wonders exactly what is implied in the expression "subcontract". We have
740
contractors and subcontractors, but here it is subcontractors only who are singled out. Amendment No. 21 refers in subsection (2) to the transitional period. It may be here that my own ignorance leads me to a misunderstanding but I do not know what the transitional period referred to is. It may be mentioned elsewhere in the Bill but at the moment I cannot find it.
Are we really to have the operations of the National Rivers Authority (from which we expect so much) wait upon the bureaucratic making of regulations covering all kinds of subcontracting of its functions? Even then, only those functions relating to computing facilities and information technology, sampling and laboratory analysis, are to be considered as subcontracting possibilities. No, I hope that noble Lords who had thought of supporting the amendment will on reflection realise that it is simply not on.
4 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is making a mountain out of a molehill. The wording here may not be entirely accurate. We are trying to make sure that the National Rivers Authority will not contract out to the water plcs the job of testing their own sewerage and the pollution of their own rivers after a certain period of time.
It is clearly understood that the water authorities have the expertise to carry out these functions although they are usually done by the local authorities and by their environmental health officers. Yes, the water in my own area has been tested by the local authority, as I am sure is the case in the area where the noble Lord, Lord Renton, lives.
Many private operators could do these things—universities and other establishments. All we are saying is that after a reasonable period of time the NRA should be obliged by regulation to put the functions out elsewhere, but not the plcs. If noble Lords want an example, for goodness' sake one has only to look at the City of London when we talk about Chinese walls that do not work. I believe the amendment to be eminently suitable. It should be taken on board even if the wording is not quite correct.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, despite the passionate intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, it is clear that the case which my noble friend Lord Renton made against the amendment stands. It is impractical and, if I may use the word, somewhat stupid. It must be absolutely evident that the National Rivers Authority will have to do this, not only for the transitional period mentioned in the amendment.
There is one other point which my noble friend did not raise but which is pertinent. It is very curious that those who support the amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Addington, make a plea for the independence of the NRA. They go on to suggest—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, talked about poachers and gamekeepers, a point which I think everybody accepts—that the amendment would require that independence be compromised

741
through constant referral to regulations by the Secretary of State. That is something I should have thought we would want an independent National Rivers Authority to avoid.
So, on both theoretical and practical grounds, the wording of the amendment seems to be misconceived. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised the point that we do not want the water authorities testing themselves. I should have thought, from the general tenor of the amendment, that that was one of the precise reasons why the National Rivers Authority was established in the first place. It is to see that this sort of thing does not happen and that it carries out its functions properly. Therefore, although one has complete sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, the amendment as written cannot apply, both for the practical reasons which my noble friend raised and for the theoretical reasons in regard to the authority's independence which I have raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, these amendments go a little further than the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Committee stage in that they now recognise the necessity, in the short term, for the NRA to be able to contract out certain work, including computing and laboratory services to the plcs if it is to be able to carry out its functions properly. They thus provide for a transitional period of two years during which such contracts would be permissible, and to that extent are to be welcomed.
However, they go on to propose that no computing or laboratory work should be able to be subcontracted beyond that period. Even though the amendments make provision for that period to be extended, I am afraid I must part company with the noble Lord. Although I am determined as he is, if I may say so, that the NRA's independence should not be compromised, I do not see that contracting out of some parts of the kind of work mentioned in the amendments poses any threat whatever to that independence. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has also made it clear during the earlier debate that he and the rest of the NRA Advisory Committee fully share that view.
In one region the NRAAC has proposed that analysis of water samples should be carried out by the plc laboratory for considerably longer than two years, as being the most cost-effective of the available alternatives. In most other regions it is not intended that there should be long-term reliance on the plcs for routine bulk analysis, but even so there is likely to be specialist work such as virological analysis which cannot be done in-house by the NRA except at disproportionate cost.
These amendments would forbid such work being contracted out to any other person, which seems to me to be rather unrealistic and to run counter to the Government's view that the NRA should be encouraged to subcontract as much of its operational work as possible. But I would also oppose these amendments even if they only debarred contracting out to the plcs because, like my noble friend Lord
742
Crickhowell, I simply do not accept the view that this would pose any substantial threat to the NRA's independence. It would merely limit its ability to secure the best value for money.
During the debate in Committee some stress was laid on the position of a plc employee who might have to give evidence against his employer. Again, today, stress was laid on it by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I acknowledge the concerns expressed on this side of the House as well as by noble Lords opposite, but let us look at the actual situation. A water sample would come in to a laboratory, completely unmarked as to its origin—one of dozens. The laboratory technicians would put it through a routine series of tests and processes and then enter the results, probably in a computer file, for more or less immediate onward transmission to the National Rivers Authority. If it turned out that the sample was outside the permissible pollution limits and that that was the fault of the very company which employed the laboratory technicians in question, then in one sense perhaps that would be embarrassing. But how does it affect the independence of the NRA?
Having been alerted to it by the laboratory, the NRA will then ensure that further samples from the waters concerned are dealt with by another laboratory—normally one of its own laboratories in another region altogether, once these are in operation—and certainly not by a laboratory owned by the offending plc. Meanwhile, in order to ensure that the plc is not indulging in manipulation of sample results, there will of course be continuous random cross-checks using third party laboratories. I have dwelt on this point at some length because it is an important one and because I would like to put it in its true perspective, as I see it.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is sadly not here today, in his speech in Committee urged the Government to stipulate that when the National Rivers Authority wants to contract out to the plcs it must obtain ministerial approval. The laboratory and computing contracts will in fact be approved by the Secretary of State as part of the schemes of transfer under Schedule 2, and my department is in constant contact with the NRAAC to ensure that the contracts proposed do in fact satisfy the future NRA's vital needs for security and independence.
The Government and the NRAAC have both given this problem very careful consideration and are unable to agree with the views of those who see dangers in either the laboratory or the computing work being contracted out to the plcs or, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, to any other competent party at any time in the future. As my noble friend Lord Nugent so rightly pointed out in Committee, needless duplication of facilities is a practice which could cost a very great deal of money, and consumers will not thank us if we oblige the NRA to spend money in this or any other way. I respectfully suggest therefore that these are matters not for legislation but for the management of the NRA, who will clearly be extremely sensitive to the need to be sure that the service it gets on these functions is entirely reliable and untainted. Tying

743
its hands in the way suggested in these amendments seems wrong both in principle and as a matter of practice. That is why I urge your Lordships to resist these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish to say straight away that I acknowledge the force of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In seeking to accommodate the very reasonable concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and others to secure that sensible arrangements were possible in the opening years of the life of the National Rivers Authority we have gone too far. We have sought in the text of these amendments to do something that we did not intend to do in our minds, which was to prohibit all subcontracting, whether to the plcs or to anybody else. To that extent, the amendments are not only defective but are gravely defective. I shall not ask the House to divide on them.
I apologise partly for having taken up some of the time of the House with defective amendments. I say partly because the response of the Minister is of great interest to us. I listened carefully to what he said in his argument against any restriction of subcontracting to the plcs. He will understand that, whatever the amendment states, I do not agree with that.
I listened in particular to what the Minister said about the safeguards which will be incorporated in the schemes of transfer under Schedule 2. That seems to me to offer some hope that we might reach an acceptable compromise between now and a later stage of the Bill which would protect the distinction between poacher and gamekeeper. That is, after all, at the heart of the establishment of the National Rivers Authority. It is a gamekeeper authority called into being because the water and sewerage undertakings are to be privatised and are to be removed from other controls. To that extent, I believe we are all in agreement that there must be this separation of powers and responsibilities.
However, I do not think I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, in what he called his theoretical argument. I shall have to think about that and read his speech with some care between now and a later stage. However, it is clear that what we want to do, which is to maintain the independence of the National Rivers Authority from the plcs that it is supposed to be controlling, is not achieved by these amendments. As I said, we may have to look at other ways of achieving what we want between now and Third Reading. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report now be adjourned.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Events in China: Implications for Hong Kong
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on events in China and their implications for Hong Kong. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about events in China in recent weeks.
"During the last few days units of the Chinese Army have been engaged in the violent suppression of peaceful and popular demonstrations in the streets of Peking. The indiscriminate and unprovoked use of military force has caused the death or injury of thousands of students and other innocent civilians. I am sure that all Members of the House will share the worldwide sense of horror and join in the international condemnation of the slaughter of innocent people.
"I summoned the Chinese chargé d'affaires yesterday. I told him that the British Government and people were united in condemning the merciless treatment of peaceful demonstrators, and deeply deplored the use of force to suppress the democratic aspirations of the Chinese people. I told him that the British Government looked to the Chinese authorities to fulfil their obligations to Hong Kong in the joint declaration.
"I reminded him of the responsibilities of the Chinese Government to ensure the safety of British citizens and Hong Kong residents. I expressed concern at the maltreatment of British journalists, particularly Michael Fathers of the Independent and Johnathan Mirsky of the Observer. We have since seen disturbing reports of the ill-treatment of Kate Adie of the BBC.
"Our ambassador in Peking and his staff have been working round the clock to ensure the safety of British citizens and Hong Kong residents in Peking and as far as possible in other parts of China. The embassy has advised against travel to any part of China. They have also advised those who are concerned about their safety and have no pressing need to remain in China to leave immediately.
"Since the Cultural Revolution there has been a substantial improvement in relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China as the Chinese Government have sought to broaden their contacts with the international community and to introduce economic and other reforms. Friends of China in this House and around the world must share the hope that sane and balanced government will be swiftly and securely restored in Peking. In present circumstances, however, there can be no question of continuing normal business with the Chinese authorities.

745
"Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided on the following action. All scheduled ministerial exchanges between Britain and China have been suspended. The visit of the Chinese Minister of Justice, who was due to arrive here tomorrow, has been cancelled. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also cancelled his forthcoming visit to China.
"The proposed visit of Their Royal Highnesses The Prince and Princess of Wales to China in November clearly cannot take place so long as those responsible for the atrocities over the past weekend remain in control of the Chinese Government. All high-level military contacts with China have been suspended. All arms sales to China have been banned. At the same time the Government are examining how we can respond to any requests for humanitarian assistance from non-governmental organisations.
"The whole House will share the Government's special concern about the implications for Hong Kong of what has been happening in Peking. The Government understand and share the grave concern felt by the people of Hong Kong. We have all been deeply impressed by the strength and restraint of their response to what has happened.
"Everything that has been accomplished in Hong Kong has been achieved in the unique context of the geography and history of the territory, and by the talent and enterprise of its people. All that underlines the extent to which the future prosperity of Hong Kong must depend upon a successful and secure partnership with the Government and people of China. That objective is enshrined in the commitments made by the British Government and the Government of China under the joint declaration. Those commitments were reaffirmed by the chargé d'affaires when he called on me yesterday. But it is self-evident that if we are to have confidence in the commitment of the Chinese Government to their obligations, there must be a stable and responsible government in Peking. The British Government will stand by its obligations under the joint declaration. The Government and the House look to the Government of the People's Republic of China to live up to that international commitment as well.
"The events in Peking must affect the prospects and procedure for implementation of the joint declaration. Consultations about the second draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong have been suspended. It is also difficult to see how our own contacts with the Chinese Government about the future of Hong Kong can continue in present circumstances.
"Meanwhile, I can assure the House that we shall be conducting a thorough examination of the programme for advancing and consolidating effective democracy in Hong Kong. We are considering urgently what further steps can be taken to enshrine and protect Hong Kong's freedoms and way of life after 1997.
746
"All of us in this House are acutely conscious of the wish of the people of Hong Kong to secure some form of assurance for themselves and their families. I know that this has been one of the issues studied by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Some commentators have recommended that a right of abode in this country should be given to the 3¼ million people in Hong Kong who hold British nationality. We share the desire of the House to do everything we can to enhance the security of the people of Hong Kong. On that basis, the Government are looking urgently and sympathetically at the scope for flexibility. But the House will appreciate the reason why we could not easily contemplate a massive new immigration commitment which could—and the possibility cannot be disregarded—more than double the ethnic minority population of the United Kingdom. Our overriding aim must be to do everything possible to secure the continuation of those conditions in Hong Kong that have led to its outstanding success over the last century. I hope the House will send a message to the people of Hong Kong, reaffirming our commitment to their secure, stable and prosperous future.
"The Chinese people are seeking from their communist leadership rights and liberties which are taken for granted in the free world. The slaughter in Peking is a tragic setback to the campaign for democracy but I hope this House will send a united message. China cannot ignore the lessons which are being learnt elsewhere in the world. Economic prosperity and personal liberty go hand in hand. People will not forever tolerate government by repression".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. As the Statement says, we have all been profoundly shocked by the deplorable and distressing events in Tiananmen Square over the weekend. We condemn such action without reservation. It would be a mistake at this stage to attempt to make any judgment or prediction as to the consequences of recent developments in China. We and other countries must wait to see how matters develop and whether the present government or some other administration emerges from the present chaos. This seems to me to be the only practical and sensible stance at this moment.
We note the advice that the Government are giving to British nationals in China. Can the Minister say what assistance is being offered to them if that may be required? In particular, there is concern about the large number of British students in China. Perhaps the noble Lord could confirm the situation with respect to the students in the light of recent press reports about the dangers to their safety. We also note the remarks in the Statement about British journalists. I should like to pay a tribute to them for their courage in dangerous circumstances and also for the quality of their reporting.

747
We have noted that President Bush has announced an embargo on the sale of arms and we support the Government's decision to ban arms sales to China as well as the other measures listed in the Statement.
As the Foreign Secretary has said, we are all very conscious of the implications of these events for Hong Kong and for the Sino-British joint declaration. We can understand the natural apprehensions of the people in Hong Kong about their future. I am sure that the Government are studying those implications very carefully indeed. We support the short-term measures which the Government propose in relation to the second draft Basic Law and the undertaking to conduct a thorough examination and programme for advancing democracy in Hong Kong. Can the noble Lord say who will be conducting that examination? Will it involve the Legislative Council as well as the Hong Kong Government and Her Majesty's Government?
We note what the Foreign Secretary says about extending the right of abode and the Government's intention to look at the scope for flexibility. That is a significant part of the Statement and we shall need to return to it in detail in due course.
Finally, we support the Government's message to China. We want to see a resolution of the current crisis there without further bloodshed and we hope that Her Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to facilitate that.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said in response to the Statement repeated by the noble Lord and which was made by his right honourable and learned friend in the House of Commons. We on these Benches should also like to associate ourselves with all those who have condemned the savage killings which have taken place and the tragic state of affairs that we are witnessing.
I should like also to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said about the courage of British journalists and BBC and other television reporters and the admirable nature of the reports which we have received from them, at great risk to themselves.
As has been said, the situation in China is extremely difficult to read. I think that everyone would agree that it is most unwise to come quickly to conclusions which have to be qualified by the ignorance in which we find ourselves. However, it appears to be clear that there are divisions within the party, and there may be divisions within the army. Therefore all may not necesarily be lost and the sacrifices which have been made may not have been in vain. But it is obviously right for the Government, as the Statement indicates, to take into account the possibility that the situation may not improve. Therefore consideration has to be given to the measures which would have to be taken in those circumstances. I should like to associate myself with the measures which have already been taken and which are set forth in the Statement.
I suppose that we should be considering whether there is any possibility of devising means which
748
would preserve some of the position of Hong Kong in the future, if necessary by means of international safeguards, since it would be in the interests of China for that position to be maintained. I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, on the need to introduce democratic elections within Hong Kong as soon as possible.
The most urgent question which arises is the need to give reassurances to the inhabitants of Hong Kong as to their future. While recognising the difficulty of opening the gates to all, once again perhaps I may suggest to the Government that this is a case in which the problem can only be dealt with by international action; namely, by gathering other states together to express a willingness to take in quotas of inhabitants of Hong Kong. We should take the lead by expanding and liberalising our attitude to those people, as some of us have been urging in this House these last few months.
I am most grateful to have had this Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, we shall want to consider it in more detail when the situation becomes clearer.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may first respond to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Bonham-Carter, and thank them both for their comments in support of the Statement that I have repeated and, indeed, the steps contained within it. I am grateful for that support. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I believe that, at what amounts to a fairly early point in this tragic tale, it is difficult, and would be a mistake, to make judgments about what is likely to happen in the future or to try to predict a scene which changes more or less by the minute.
However, perhaps I may try to give some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about assistance that is being provided. I realise that the House will be concerned for the safety of British citizens in China and of British students in China to whom the noble Lord particularly referred. The embassy has put great efforts into establishing contact with all British nationals and Hong Kong people in Peking. There have been no difficulties involving British citizens or Hong Kong people so far, apart from the manhandling by Chinese security personnel of British journalists to which I referred. I explained that our very firm advice is that all travel to China should be postponed until the situation becomes clearer.
So far as concerns evacuation, we have already advised British nationals and Hong Kong people in those areas where there has been trouble and who are concerned for their safety to take the opportunity to leave by commercial means. Arrangements have been made for special flights to evacuate British and Hong Kong people. We shall keep under review the need to charter further aircraft to help ease the pressure that exists on ordinary commercial flights.
So far as concerns students, a special British Airways flight is due to arrive in Peking at 2300 hours local time and leave at midnight local time, today, 6th June, for Hong Kong. A convoy with

749
some 120 British and Commonwealth students on board has been dispatched to the airport to catch that plane.
There are about 860 British subjects in China, nearly 500 of whom are in Peking and Shanghai. We do not know how many Hong Kong people there are in China because they rarely register with the British embassy.
I certainly agree with both noble Lords that the reporting that we have all seen on the BBC and in the papers has been absolutely first-class. I too join with those who praise the bravery of those journalists who have undertaken that reporting.
So far as concerns further consideration of the position of Hong Kong, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggests about an international mechanism to look at the process for taking Hong Kong forward in the light of recent developments. I believe that there are difficulties in that respect because, irrespective of what has happened over the last few days, both sides are committed to the joint declaration and to how that should be taken forward.
So far as concerns the right of abode here or anywhere else—another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—we all sympathise deeply with the people of Hong Kong at this particularly worrying time and understand their anxiety to secure some form of ultimate assurance for themselves and their families. So far as concerns the establishment of some sort of wider international mechanism to take those people, that is an interesting proposition, but it nevertheless poses problems. We shall have to consider that matter, as we consider other matters, during a period of careful and sympathetic consideration as to whether anything can be done to meet those concerns.
So far as concerns the review of the Basic Law and other aspects which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised, these are matters that we shall have to look at in the light of the circumstances that prevail. Naturally, we shall need to consult the governor—who has postponed his visit to this country but may nevertheless be able to come in the not too distant future—before any mechanism can be established. But I assure the noble Lord that the point that he has made will be fully taken on board.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for his welcome indication that there will now be greater flexibility in granting passports with the right of abode to Hong Kong citizens. However, will he bear in mind that it is quite absurd to suppose that 3·2 million people would come here? They want those passports with the right of abode as an insurance against the Chinese turning nasty. Is the noble Lord aware that the possession of those passports will be a great bar to the Chinese turning nasty and that they may never be used at all? They are only an insurance policy. It is not an opening of the flood gates to mass immigration here.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, has made that point on a number
750
of occasions and I am well aware of it. As I have said to him in the past, and while not failing to grasp for one moment the significance of what has happened in recent days, it is difficult to contemplate legislation on the basis that it would never be used. That is the point that I hope the noble Lord will understand. I think that my right honourable friend's Statement is quite clear as to the views which will be taken and have been taken over successive Parliaments of the immigration policies that have been pursued and the significance of the fact that the proposal would more than double the ethnic minority in this country. Nevertheless, as I have said, we shall have to consider in the light of the circumstances that prevail whether or not something else can be done to meet the concerns of the Hong Kong people. I hope that the noble Lord will take that assurance as it is meant.
Lord Walston: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord for repeating the strong and forthright Statement of his right honourable and learned friend; it is good to listen to it. Perhaps I may also support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, concerning the right of abode in this country. There is a great deal of force in what he says. I am quite sure that the granting of the right of abode would have a significant effect upon the way that the Chinese will treat the Chinese residents of Hong Kong.
At the risk of perhaps speaking unduly frankly, I cannot help feeling that the statement that:
"We share the desire of the House to do everything we can to enhance the security of the people of Hong Kong",
verges on the hypocritical. They are not doing "everything we can". To do "everything we can" would be to grant the right of abode. The Statement would perhaps be more accurate if it were to say that we share the desire to do quite a lot of things that we can, but not all of them. I urge upon the noble Lord the arguments of both the noble Lords, Lord Wyatt and Lord Bonham-Carter, to look seriously and urgently at the possibility of making some serious concession in that direction.
I should like to ask the Minister one rather small question which he may or may not be able to answer. I do not know whether he or other noble Lords watched breakfast television on the BBC this morning in which there was a short interview with a Chinese student from Hong Kong who had serious complaints about the failure of the British embassy in Peking to help her when she appealed to it for help. I am well aware of the enormous burden that must be placed on the embassy and its staff, and I am sure that they are responding admirably. However, it is disturbing when somebody from Hong Kong comes on television in this country and says that she met with far less help than she had hoped for when she was in dire difficulties. Perhaps the noble Lord could take a look at that matter if, as I suspect is the case, he does not know about it already.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on the first point which the noble Lord raised, I do not think that I can add to what I have already said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. As is made

751
plain in the Statement, the granting of right of abode to all those whom the noble Lord wishes to see with that right of abode means more than doubling the ethnic minority population of the United Kingdom. As he will be aware, there has been an expression of view by successive governments on immigration matters which encompasses that wish which the noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Wyatt of Weeford, have just expounded. There is a very real practical difficulty involved which I do not think anyone minimises. It is important to see whether or not we can find other means of reassurance for the Hong Kong people, the plight of whom under present circumstances I certainly appreciate.
At the same time, it is extremely important to bear in mind the need to secure the future of Hong Kong as the thoroughly outstanding place that it has been over the years, and which we sincerely hope we can bring about in the future, post-1997.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned somebody claiming to have been turned away by the embassy in Peking. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that that is not in fact the case. There was no truth in that report or in what was said. The individual concerned, Mabel Chan, who is a Hong Kong TV reporter, was not told that the embassy could not accept her. She was advised to stay in her hotel until the situation on the streets improved slightly, and other British people staying in the same hotel were given the same advice; Mabel Chan and other Hong Kong journalists would be able to make their way safely to the airport and to other places of safety once the immediate threat had lifted.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the excellent statement, for the horror that he has expressed about events in China, for his sympathy for the people of Hong Kong, and for his detailed account of the action which the Government have taken.
With the rapidly changing events, the exact details of which we do not know at present, I am sure that he is absolutely right to have held fast to the very detailed international agreement, the whole sense of which is to ensure that what has happened in China, what has happened in the past and what is happening today, does not happen in Hong Kong. It is very wise to have acted in that way and not to have followed the advice which some have given, in dismay, to tear up that excellent agreement.
With regard to the concern that I have expressed in your Lordships' House before, and which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has expressed today, about reassuring the Hong Kong people about their future, about nationality or other arrangements in the United Kingdom, I ask the Minister to reconsider whether a home of last resort is not a rather different proposition from the issuing of British Nationality to 3½ million people. The circumstances in which that would arise would be quite different and I think would be better understood in this country.
Having said that, I realise that this is an issue which will have to be discussed on another occasion and as events unfold. Meanwhile, I should like to congratulate the Minister and thank him for his Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for those comments, and particularly for his support of the main issue, which is that tearing up the agreement would really be disastrous. Whatever the circumstances, it is much better to do all that we can to build upon what has been achieved, which has been so widely acclaimed in the past. That does not lead me to underestimate the difficulties in taking matters forward.
So far as the question of reassurance to the people living in Hong Kong is concerned and the idea of a home of last resort, which is very much picking up the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, of course I take that point. The noble Lord will not be surprised if I point out to him the difficulties that such a proposition brings forward, but nevertheless these and other issues will have to form part of our consideration over the coming weeks.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to ask one question, and also to thank my noble friend for something. First, does the Minister not recall, when Amin was particularly brutal, that ultimately we had to take British passport-holders from East Africa? Surely that is a parallel to the home of last resort. Surely that is the precedent. It would be much better to admit them now rather than when everything has gone totally wrong. Let us hope that matters will not go totally wrong, but if there were to be large numbers of people floating about the China Sea clutching worthless British passports we should have to take them in anyway. Is it not better to do that before rather than after it becomes inevitable, because then one gets the reputation for being statesmanlike?
Secondly, I should like to thank his office for being so kind and helpful with regard to my daughter. She has now sent me a telegram that she is safe and well in Xian.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am glad to hear from my noble friend that his daughter has reported that she is safe and well. I am glad that we were able to help over that.
So far as comparison with other events are concerned, whether it be Amin or anybody else, it is easy to draw those sort of comparisons but the fact is that the figures that we are talking about are quite colossal. While not wishing to develop the theme in too great a detail because it is really impossible to do so at present, all I can say to my noble friend is that he must be aware of the fact that some might not find it as easy to accept those large numbers as he might be. Nevertheless, as I have said, we shall look at everything and see what can be done.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that the free world will now know the grave concern that this nation has for the people of Hong Kong? That being so, ought we not to hasten to pursue all the measures that are required to make Hong Kong a member of the comity of free nations so that democracy can be introduced there? I am sure that the Hong Kong people and the free world will

753
appreciate that, and it will be one of the best things we could do to safeguard Hong Kong, particularly in regard to future relationships with China.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as the introduction of a greater degree of democracy into Hong Kong is concerned, over recent months we have been trying to introduce representative government in Hong Kong at a pace which commands the widest possible support in that territory. Clearly opinion in Hong Kong is now evolving. We shall need to respond to that. A number of suggestions have been made. Under the present circumstances we could not ignore a clear call from the community there for a faster pace of development than that which has hitherto been envisaged.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in addition to the actions that the Government have outlined, which we on this side of the House fully support, has consideration been given to the involvement of the United Nations in this matter? What has happened in China is a flagrant and outrageous breach, not of ordinary basic human rights of protest but the right to live. The turning of tanks and guns against students in peaceful protest has outraged the conscience of the world, I venture to think.
China is a member of the United Nations; I am not sure that it is not a member of the Security Council. Accordingly, is it not imperative now that instead of the deafening silence from the United Nations, we should enlist and seek the involvement of the UN itself in this grave current crisis in world affairs? That is what it is.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly agree with all that the noble and learned Lord says about the conscience of the world being outraged by what has been seen. I can tell him that a Statement was issued on 5th June on behalf of the United Nations Secretary-General which I shall certainly read out if that would be the noble and learned Lord's wish.
The Statement states:
"The Secretary-General is greatly saddened that it was felt necessary to resort to force in Beijing over the weekend and that, as a result, many civilian lives were lost. The Secretary-General is most mindful of the Charter's requirement that the United Nations should abstain from intervention in regard to matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states. He very much hopes, however, that utmost restraint will be exercised in the difficult situation that prevails".
I believe that that is the answer to the noble and learned Lord, although I understand the force of the point that he raises: that normally the Security Council addresses itself only to conflicts between states which might lead to a threat to international peace and stability.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I warmly welcome and fully endorse the remarks by my right honourable and learned friend in another place as repeated by my noble friend this afternoon.
The word that comes to my mind, as indeed it came to the mind of the Governor of Hong Kong on Sunday, is horror at the appalling performance by
754
the troops of the People's Republic of China last Saturday and Sunday and subsequently.
The point on which I wish to dwell extremely briefly is the very positive comment that my noble friend repeated in the Statement—I hope that I have his words correctly—of there being scope for flexibility regarding the right of abode of BDTC and BN(O) Hong Kong citizens. Several comments have been made by noble Lords this afternoon regarding right of abode. I am not trying to go on to too fine a point of law. However, I am aware that Mr. John Swaine of Amalco, in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in Hong Kong, put forward the proposal that holders of those passports should have the right of multiple entry into the United Kingdom, thereby giving them the opportunity to acquire the residential qualification for full British citizenship.
Indeed, my noble friend (in col. 880 of Hansard) on 23rd March stated—and this is perhaps significant in this context:
"By far the most common basis for granting British citizenship is that the people concerned are already resident in Britain and have met the residence requirements set out by law".
Is this perhaps an area where—again if I have his words correctly—there is scope for flexibility regarding right of abode? It is of enormous importance to the citizens of Hong Kong to give them, in particular at this time, this lifeline on which to cling.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes. I note the views of my noble friend on that. I can tell him that his memory of the words used in the Statement is correct. We shall look urgently and sympathetically at the scope of flexibility. I am quite sure that the question of multiple entry is a matter that can form part of that examination.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. Is there any truth in reports that there have been attempts to block broadcasts by external services of the BBC—that is the World Service, and in the vernacular—by the Chinese authorities? Is my noble friend aware that on my numerous visits to the People's Republic of China these broadcasts count as a critically important window to the outside world? Will my noble friend do everything that he possibly can to ensure that these broadcasts are heard as audibly as possible?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there were earlier reports that there had been some jamming. I believe that these have not been validated. I can also tell my noble friend that the external services of the BBC have increased the amount of broadcasting in Mandarin that is taking place at the moment.
Lord Parry: My Lords, before the House leaves this very important Statement about this awful international event, is the Minister able to give us a little more information about a very important aspect of the Statement which talked about the Government's intention to see how they could co-operate with humanitarian agencies in relieving the immediate pressures? Will he accept that quite often in these situations it is what one is able to do

755
immediately and practically that achieves the general aim more quickly than the policies that are sometimes outlined?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse on precisely where we stand. That is obviously a most important matter. We shall be considering ways of trying to meet the concern that he raises.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, will my noble friend again consider the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about the United Nations? This is not just an internal matter that is taking place in Peking. There is a fall-out in a wider field. We have seen events taking place in Tibet in the past six months. This could also fall out in a major way on the position of Hong Kong which has been indicated by previous questions put to my noble friend this afternoon. I should be grateful if he could consult with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to see whether or not further measures can be taken to follow up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly shall do that. As I said, the Security Council normally addresses itself only to conflicts between states. Of course it is a fact that China is a permanent member of the Security Council and could exercise her veto against any attempt by that body to criticise her action. However, action in the United Nations human rights machinery is another matter. We shall certainly be considering that with our European Community colleagues.

Water Bill
4.58 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("and shall include persons representative of—

(i) conservation and environmental organisations;

(ii) recreational and sports organisations;

(iii) consumers; and

(iv) local authorities").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may help the House by making a brief reference to page 2. Clause 1 sets out the composition and some of the functions of the National Rivers Authority. The House is well aware that the National Rivers Authority is crucial and important. We are inviting the Minister to say something helpful about how important it is. Subsection (2) states:
"The Authority shall consist of not less than eight nor more than fifteen members of whom—

(a) two shall be appointed by the Minister; and

(b) the others shall be appointed by the Secretary of State".

We understand the significance of that.
This amendment returns to the issues which were raised on Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 at the Committee stage. At that stage the Opposition moved an amendment to establish a different representational structure for the National Rivers Authority. I remind the House that at that stage two objections were raised to the amendment. The first was that it would enable direct appointments to be made to the NRA, and that would slightly enlarge the size of the NRA from a maximum of 15 to a maximum of 18 persons. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is very assiduous in these matters said on 2nd May at col. 70 of the Official Report that it would be a possible alternative structure for appointees, but he voiced doubts about a body to which representatives were appointed directly by other organisations.
The amendment seeks to meet the detailed objections that were raised. We want to include persons representative of conservation and environmental organisations, recreational and sports organisations, consumers and local authorities. All those appointments would be made by the Secretary of State. We ask that he will be required to include persons representative of such groups; that is, suggested to him by or appointed by him from among the conservation groups, recreational and sports organisations, consumers and local authorities.
The purpose of the amendment is to seek a statement from the Government that they intend to have a proper range of persons on the National Rivers Authority board. The Government may point out that it is their intention to appoint from environmental interests and recreational groups anyway. But the Minister and his advisers will have noted from what has been said so far that it is not clear that there is an intention that the voice of the consumer and local authorities be heard on the board of the National Rivers Authority.
I am sure that the Minister will be pleased that we are mindful of the helpful attitude that the Government have displayed over representation on the regional rivers, fisheries and flood defence committees and that they have some independent standing within the NRA. The joint membership of such bodies will be incompatible with such a role. I hope that the Government will go further than they have to date in confirming their intention to ensure that the NRA reflects the main areas of interest and concern, even if the persons appointed to it are not direct representatives of any constituent interest. I am well aware that the Minister is likely to jib at what he might say would be reserved places on a body of this kind in the gift and the fiefdom of the interests that we have listed.
We want the Minister to tell us that there is a clear intention that the bodies, the groups or the areas of interest that we have specified are among those that he intends to see represented on the NRA. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am concerned about this amendment. I feel that the National Rivers Authority's fundamental principle is to deal with water quality objectives and control of pollution. The conservation and environmental

757
organisations and the recreational and sports facilities are surely already fully covered under Clause 8. I do not believe that we should unduly strengthen the powers of that important Clause 8 in dealing with the environmental and recreational duties. Equally I must query the expression "consumers". Consumers of what? Except in Chapter IV of Part III under Clause 140, which deals with salmon and freshwater fisheries, I do not think that the National Rivers Authority has anything to do with consumers in that sense of the word. Consumers of water are dealt with by the water undertakers. The local authorities are already very much involved in everyday matters, but I believe that this important body, the National Rivers Authority, must have people on it who are experienced in water quality and control of pollution more than anything else. It will be only a small body. That is why I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment for the simple reason that the four groups mentioned on the Marshalled List are directly concerned in what the NRA is doing: that is, ensuring water quality. The conservation and environmental organisations surely should have at least a representative on this body. I hope that there will be more than one. The recreation and sports organisations have a direct role to play. I suggest that in a Bill dealing with the privatisation of water some provision should be made for the consumers of water to have some form of representation either from a consumer body or from some other body.
The local authorities will be involved in every single aspect of providing a water authority for the people by whom they are elected. I suggest too that they deserve to be represented. I give my support to the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have made it clear on a number of previous occasions that our intention will be to appoint to the NRA board members with knowledge relevant to the functions of the NRA. Last week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the names of 12 people who will in due course be appointed to the NRA board under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I am sure that your Lordships will accept that we have in these people brought together a team with a wide variety of experience who will be able to speak authoritatively on the important issues with which the NRA will be concerned.
However, this amendment would impose a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint members representing specific interests. Such a requirement would lead to members feeling mandated to represent a particular interest which is something we feel strongly should be avoided.
For that reason I disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said. Your Lordships will be aware that our aim is to have an NRA board where all members take a broader interest than any specific expertise or background that may have led to their appointment. I am confident, and I am
758
sure your Lordships will join me in sharing this confidence, that the people we have now selected will successfully carry forward the NRA's tasks in the months ahead.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that the 12 members of the board have been named. Unfortunately I have missed the appointments. Can the noble Earl tell us whether there are 12 men or a mixture of men and women? I do not doubt their integrity or their ability to do the job for which they have been appointed, but it would be helpful to me later to study their backgrounds. Clearly there will be a biographical line or two about all of them.
There is a fundamental difference here. The Minister fell into what I would call a trap. We are not asking that these people will represent, but that they will be representative of. There is a distinction. I can understand why the Minister jibbed on a previous occasion when it was suggested that these people should represent the views of their respective bodies. That is why we have changed this slightly to give more flexibility. I listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said. There is a clear difference of philosophy between what he said and what we are suggesting. He was man enough to say that he disagreed with our approach completely. In his view the only qualification there should be is that the board should be capable of managing water control and that they should know something about water and its qualities.
I imagine that there is not a person in the land who could not claim to know something about water and its qualities. It is a question of degree and giving confidence to the people of the land. I am certain that the Minister and his colleagues will be satisfied that the newly appointed embryo members of the National Rivers Authority will be competent businessmen and businesswomen who will all have a background of some kind. Collectively they may be capable of saying that they represent the views of these people. But I do not think it is helpful to consumers to say that someone who is seen to be specially interested and experienced in one subject can represent the views of consumers in general. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, has spoken with great authority because she is the chairman of the Consumers' Council. In their wisdom, this and previous governments have believed that the voice of the "consumer" should be heard in the land. To dismiss local authorities as having a special role to play by not giving them a voice and by saying that they have much on their plate shows a difference in attitudes.
Can the Minister say a little more about the appointees? It would be helpful to me before I conclude my suggestions.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord will find a copy of the press release in the Library. The Secretary of State has said that the following people will be appointed. Dr. John Bowman, who is secretary to the Natural Environment Research Council. Peter Brandt, who was a merchant banker. Peter Coverdale, who has enormous experience of land drainage work. Lady

759
Digby, who has been a valuable member of the Wessex Water Authority. Professor Ronald Edwards, who is professor of applied biology at the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology and a member of the Welsh Water Authority. Sir Hugh Fish, who has been chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council since 1985. David Kinnersley, who is a former chief executive of North West Water Authority and from 1970 to 1973 was director of the Association of Rivers Authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, Lord Graham may have met on previous occasions. He is well known in your Lordships' House. He is a particularly good sportsman and was a well-known Labour Party spokesman on agriculture, fisheries and food. Dennis Mitchell, who is chairman of the Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee and Environmental Panel for the South West Water Authority. Mrs. Karen Morgan, who is managing director of Marine Logic. John Norris, who is also well experienced in flood defence and land drainage in the Anglian Water Authority since 1971. John Wheatley was director of the Central Sports Council from 1983 to 1988.
Noble Lords will see a wide range of interests covering all the functions of the NRA. I am sure that we shall have every confidence in those people to take forward the valuable work of the NRA.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I listened carefully and tried to pick holes in what the Minister said. But when he came to the name of "Fish" representing water interests I gave up. Obviously, Sir Hugh Fish has a great contribution to make.
The Minister has been helpful. I am sure that the interests which I sought to be represented on the committee will, on close analysis, be seen to be fairly faithfully represented by those men and women. I am glad that the appointees are men and women. I also detected a good geographical spread of representatives around the country. It is important that outside the basic opposition or support for the privatisation of water people have confidence that such powerful committees are guided by men and women capable of drawing on their experience. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause: ("Regional Divisions of Authority
.—(1) it shall be the duty of the Authority—

(a) to establish and maintain regional divisions of the Authority for the different regions of England and Wales;

(b) to consult the regional division for any region as to any proposals of the Authority relating generally to the manner in which the Authority's functions in that division are to be carried out;

(c) to consider any representations made to it by the division for any region (whether in response to consultation under paragraph (b) above or otherwise) as to the manner in which the Authority's functions are carried out in that region; and

(d) subject to the overall policy and financial control of the Authority to delegate to the division its functions as they relate to that region.

760
(2) The duty to establish and maintain regional divisions imposed by subsection (1) above is a duty—

(a) to establish and maintain a regional division consisting of not less than six nor more than ten members for each area which the authority considers it appropriate for the time being to regard as a region of England and Wales for the purposes of this section; and

(b) to ensure that the persons appointed to each such division include persons—

(i) representative of local authorities situated in whole or part within each said region; and

(ii) who appear to the Authority to have an interest in matters likely to be affected by the manner in which the Authority's functions are carried out in the region in question and are persons who have experience of and have shown capacity in some matter relevant to the functions of the Authority.

(c) to ensure that the persons appointed in accordance with paragraph (b) above are not members of the Authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause seeks to redefine the concept of the regional divisions of the authority. The amendment returns to the issues which were raised in Amendment No. 41 tabled in Committee. In the light of a document produced by Ministers at the last moment, my noble friend Lord McIntosh declined to move it at that stage. It was from the NRA advisory committee covering a number of its functions. The amendment is not identical to Amendment No. 41 but sets out a less-ambitious structure for local representation.
Its purpose will be apparent. The Government have argued that the NRA will be a relatively decentralised body operating through divisions corresponding with the existing water authority regions. It has established a structure of advisory committees to correspond with these regions. They will work with the NRA and provide it with valuable advice from outside interests as to the carrying out of its functions.
In Committee the Government have made clear that the structure of regional river advisory committees will include representatives of local authorities; agricultural, forestry and land-owner interests; conservation and landscape interests; industry and commerce; the national parks authorities and other public bodies. There is some hope that the regional committees will be bodies with a proper and balanced view of the business before them. Nevertheless, they will be advisory.
The amendment seeks to complete the jig-saw puzzle by setting out clearly a possible structure for the regional divisions of the authority to which the Government have referred. It will require the authority to delegate its powers and duties to the regional level rather than the uncertainty of the clearly administrative arrangements which are apparently proposed and which will have no place in the Bill. Furthermore, each regional division will have its own board of members to oversee its operations.
Members of the main NRA should be persons with experience relevant to the functions of the divisions. The new clause calls for at least one person to be appointed to the division which will have six to 10 members to represent local authority interests. However, all appointments will be made by the authority. The only constraints on membership of a division will be the one now recognised by the

761
Government; that none of its members should also be members of the main NRA.
In my view, this is an opportunity for the Government to put flesh on the bones of a brief statement about the likely profile of the NRA. A body with a local board with which people can identify and feel a closer connection is more likely to be successful and popular than a remote body based in one place. The national body will be free to pursue overall strategic objectives and to allocate resources and priorities between the regions. Each region will develop a close and detailed knowledge of rivers, coastal areas and other waterways in its area. There will also be a closer monitoring relationship with industry and the relevant water plcs. The infusion of an appointed board to oversee the work of the division will prevent it from becoming too narrowly specialised in its management and outlook.
It was over 100 years ago that the great constitutional writer, Walter Bagehot, pointed to the advantages of an outsider in a bureaucracy, such as a Minister or other appointee, who could take a slightly detached and sceptical view of the expert considerations of the senior officers, see their needs with greater clarity and apply common sense and a little urgency to its activities. At page 199 of The English Constitution he wrote:
"The intrusion from without upon an office of an exterior head of the office, is not an evil, but that, on the contrary, it is essential to the perfection of that office. If it is left to itself, the office will become technical, self-absorbed, self-multiplying. It would be likely to overlook the end in the means; it will fail from narrowness of mind; it will be eager in seeming to do; it will be idle in real doing. An extrinsic chief is the fit correcter of such errors".
The amendment seeks to carry into effect much of the philosophy behind that quotation. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, yes; but I wonder what Bagehot would have said if he were asked to contemplate the duality which this amendment would create because Clause 2 of the Bill which is not to be repealed—and the noble Lord obviously intends from what he said that it should be left on the statute book—establishes advisory committees in different regions.
Then we have the amendment which as well as having advisory committees is to establish regional divisions of the authority itself. I am not at all sure how that would work. You would have board members of the regions appointed for the regions who are presumably to be members of the board at the centre as well. They would have to sit with the advisory committees which are established under Clause 2. It seems to me that there would undoubtedly be overlapping and there would be doubts as to the respective authority of regional board members and members of the advisory committees. They would have to separate their functions somehow or combine them somehow.
I should have thought it was much better—and this is a centralised situation and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was using Bagehot to try to justify that—to keep the centralised authority under the statute of the National Rivers Authority; but in
762
exercising their centralised authority, let them be advised by committees of local people at the regional level who could then enable the NRA to carry out its responsibilities in the light of that advice.
Having spoken in a general way in an attempt to answer the interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, perhaps I may point out that it is really rather interesting to compare the new clause which he has set out with Clause 2 of the Bill. Subsection (1) of the new clause starts:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority"
and then goes on in the case of the Bill to say:
"to establish and maintain advisory committees"
whereas in the new clause it states:
"to establish and maintain regional divisions".
Three paragraphs of the new clause are exactly the same as are in the Bill. However, paragraph (1)(d) is added in the new clause which states:
"subject to the overall policy and financial control of the Authority to delegate to the division its functions as they relate to that region"
and the Bill does not have that.
I grant your Lordships that in the Tory Party I believe we tend to be non-centralisers. However, here for the first time we have a National Rivers Authority. As I understand it, it would be contradictory to its real purpose, which is to have a policy which is common to all the rivers of this country, subject to advice from local committees, and ensuring that the standards that are maintained throughout the rivers system of this country are consistent. Surely it is best to have that responsibility by statute centralised but carried out in each region in the light of advice from the advisory committees.
We go on to subsection (2) of the Bill and subsection (2) of the clause. Again, it starts off with a similarity subject to the change from regional division to advisory committee and it goes on to say in the case of the Bill that the people appointed are those:
"who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters likely to be affected by the manner in which the Authority carries out any of its functions in the region in question; and (ii) consist wholly or mainly of persons who are not members of the Authority".
That seems sensible. However, here we find that the regional divisions are to be representative of local authorities which have very limited responsibilities regarding rivers under the Bill and which appear to the authority also to have that interest which I have described so far so similar.
However, when we come to paragraph (c), we again find that the persons appointed in accordance with paragraph (b) are not members of the authority. The regional people who are to be established under the amendment will not have the advantage of holding responsibility at the centre where the statutory responsibility is to lie. I am sorry that this matter is rather complicated, but I am trying to make it clear.
As to subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 2 of the Bill, there is no arrangement in the new clause; but that is rather important because in subsection (3) we find the arrangements to be made for paying the

763
chairman and other members of the advisory committee whereas there is no arrangement put forward in the clause for paying the members of the regional divisions who are not to be members of the board. So that would seem to be a gap in what the noble Lord has proposed. These days we cannot expect suitable people to do that sort of important work for nothing.
I do not believe that I need refer to subsection (4) because that refers to Scotland. The Bill states:
"carried out in any area of Scotland or of the territorial sea which is adjacent to any region".
Those are the functions of the authority referred to. I am sorry that this is rather laborious, but the argument I am trying to put forward is this; namely, that if this amendment were to be accepted, it would alter completely the scheme which has been put forward in the Bill for us to have a National Rivers Authority for the first time with its responsibility at the centre but obtaining advice from local people as should be the case. I should not have expected my noble friend to accept this amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for mentioning Walter Bagehot. It enables me briefly to reminisce. I remember studying Walter Bagehot for British Constitution A-level and I find that I still have some of his books on my shelves at home. However, I must not digress into those increasingly long ago days.
As your Lordships will know, and as my noble friend Lord Renton has reminded us, the NRA will be a major new national body. I stress the word "national", as did my noble friend. Since the December 1987 government Statement setting out our proposals for the NRA we have received overwhelming support for the concept of a single national regulatory body as provided for in the Bill.
It is of course true that the NRA will have a strong regional presence. Initially, the NRA will be organised into 10 regional units based on existing water authority boundaries and most of its functions will be carried out in these regions which will be headed by a regional general manager. The Bill also provides that each region will have three committees—an executive flood defence committee, a fisheries advisory committee and a river advisory committee. The NRA Advisory Committee envisages that the chairmen of these regional committees should meet with the regional general manager under the chairmanship of an NRA board member, who would be given specific oversight of that region, to form a regional advisory board. The purpose of the regional advisory board will be to assist the regional general manager in resolving any difficulties at local level and to enhance other links between the NRA centrally and its regions.
However, we strongly oppose any suggestion that there should be an executive board in each region as this amendment would provide. The mischief behind such an arrangement would seriously confuse lines of responsibility between the NRA board and its regional staff and undermine ministerial
764
accountability to Parliament for NRA functions. It would also seriously diminish the ability of the NRA to carry out its statutory duties.
As regards local authority involvement at regional level, local government interests will continue to be fully represented on the regional flood defence committees where local authorities will retain the majority membership. This is only right and proper because flood defence is funded by a precept on local authorities. A committee with a local authority majority should therefore—as happens at the moment and as we propose should continue—determine the precept and the flood defence programme for its area. The consultative document prepared by the NRA Advisory Committee also made it clear that local government would be one of the interests represented on the new regional rivers advisory committees. These advisory committees need to reflect local interests but are not answerable to them and a greater role for local government in NRA's affairs at regional level is not appropriate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has taken great care in pointing out the conflict or dilemma between my new clause, after Clause 1, and leaving Clause 2 in the Bill. He drew attention to those parts of the existing Clause 2 which, if left in the Bill, would be substantial additions to the new clause. He referred to the question of payment which we certainly accept is a proper part of the Bill and part of the nexus of managing these affairs.
I had to smile when the noble Lord said that the Conservative Party is a decentralising party. He could have fooled me. Over the past five, six or seven years no government have been more centralising or autocratic than the present Government in respect of powers. He should tell local government, doctors, teachers and a whole range of people in British life that this Government believe in decentralising, leaving to the perimeter, and releasing power from the centre. The Bill is contrary to that concept. But the fact that the Government are putting into the hands of a few people at the centre powers that, in our view, could properly be given to the perimeter is nothing new to us. It is a surprise to the noble Lord but not to many of us.
I take the point the noble Lord made that there could well be conflicts between the powers, or centres of power, which my new clause would undoubtedly set up. But, as Walter Bagehot was pointing out, the possibility of friction is no bad thing.
However, the Minister has been very fair in pointing out—it is one of the values of the later stages of a Bill that more goes on record—how he sees the functions of these bodies working. He has done good service to the House and to a great many other people in pointing to the limited powers that will be given to the regional rivers advisory committees and also the manner of bridging the gap between the national body, which obviously must have power, and the local people. If that works it will certainly be in the interests of the NRA to have a working arrangement—a good working arrangement—with local people at the periphery.

765
However, I am satisfied that the Minister believes that this will work. We certainly hope that it will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [The National Rivers Authority]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 191, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will be familiar not least to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The genesis of the amendment is substantially that of Amendment No. 15 to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra spoke in Committee on 2nd May at col. 103. On that occasion he argued that the approval of the Treasury should not be required for the details of remuneration and pensions paid by the NRA or for detailed staffing arrangements. In support of his case the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quoted the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who said at Second Reading:
"We have been repeatedly told by Ministers that the NRA is to be a strong and independent body. Yet the Bill provides that its management arrangements should all be subject in some detail to the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, which in practice means their officials. I am talking about what may be described as pay and rations matters … We face a situation that those responsible for running the NRA are to be second guessed by the officials on a whole range of day today matters … I have asked that the whole issue should be looked at again".—[Official Report. 17/4/89; col. 582.]
In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, rejected at col. 104 the suggestion that civil servants would "second guess" the decisions of the NRA. He said that he accepted the views of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that the NRA should be a strong and independent body with proper management responsibilities. It was also, however, the case that parliamentary accountability for the use of public funds required Treasury control. The right balance would be struck in the financial memorandum to be drawn up between the department and the NRA.
The amendment is tabled again to hear more details about the contents of the financial memorandum. Without these the House may feel that it has not heard enough about how this small but nonetheless significant matter is to be handled. If parliamentary accountability is now being used as the justification for all the powers which have accrued to Ministers in the course of the past 10 years, notably of course in local government, then this is a novel argument from a Government which used to pride themselves on reducing government controls. I detect in that sentence echoes of the debate we have just concluded.
It seems strange that the Government are determined to keep detailed control over the salaries and expenses of the members of the board yet have refused so far to allow the NRA to borrow, even with constraints set by the Secretary of State, for a planned programme of environmental works. In the same way a surplus from the NRA in any year is to be carried back to the Treasury. The Government display a clearer idea of how they want to run
766
the NRA as regards the bureaucratic details than concerning its wider environmental functions and the means by which they will be carried out. The Minister stated that there would be no second guessing of NRA decisions, but he did not explain how that will be achieved. This amendment is asking for further details of how that will be done. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned and as I moved a similar amendment at the previous stage, I wish to say that this is a matter of some concern to many of us in this House. We have welcomed the establishment of the NRA and we believe that it is going to do a very useful job. But as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, himself said, there seems to be some doubt as to the freedom with which it can operate. If such detailed matters as are indicated here are to be dealt with by the government department responsible and the Treasury, it is to be doubted that in more important matters it will not also be supervised.
If this body is to become merely an emanation of a government department, let it be stated very clearly and then we shall all know where we stand. However, if it is to be a body which it is intended should operate independently to safeguard the environmental interests of the nation as regards the water supply industry, then I believe that this kind of control by government should be reduced to the absolute minimum. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has said that there is to be a financial memorandum which will lay down the details of how this control is to be exercised. He now has the opportunity to tell us what is in this financial memorandum. Will it in fact limit the intrusion of the government department and the Treasury in the conduct of the affairs of the NRA or will it be drawn up as broadly as the Bill itself? I believe that these are matters of legitimate concern to this House, bearing in mind that we wish to see the NRA succeed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment. There may be a mistake in the list of groupings because it seems that this amendment should clearly be taken with Amendment No. 7, which proposes to leave out sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3 in Schedule 1. Paragraph 6 reads:
"The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving of an approval under this paragraph".
It is almost the same point. On previous occasions on other Bills I suggested that it is sheer nonsense, in these days of collective Cabinet responsibility and with all the palaver that we know takes place as part of the machinery of government, that in addition to a Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture being involved, the Treasury shall also be involved. I am open to correction by my noble friend on the Front Bench but, as I understand it, the estimates and the expenses of the National Rivers Authority are to be carried on the estimates and accounts of the Minister of Agriculture or those of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am not sure which it is; perhaps it is somehow divided between the two.
Bearing in mind that there is that ministerial responsibility and that such responsibility is

767
mentioned at almost every turn in establishing the National Rivers Authority, it seems quite absurd and redundant that the clammy hand of the Treasury should be placed on it as well. I hope that one day the Government will get rid of this nonsense and that we shall not see reference to the consent of the Treasury appearing in Bills quite so often. I had hoped that wisdom had already been seen in this respect because we have had several Bills in this Session in which the expression has been omitted. I hope that even yet it may be omitted on this occasion.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that there is a slight problem here because we have finished up by speaking to two amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 5 and 7. After this amendment, I am proposing to move Amendment No. 6 and to speaks the same time to Amendment No. 7. The issue is considerably narrower as regards Amendment No. 5, which addresses itself purely to matters concerning the members of the board of the NRA.
I made clear in Committee that it is standard practice for all non-departmental public bodies that if the chairman and members who are appointed by Ministers are to be paid, then their level of remuneration must be determined by the Ministers concerned with Treasury approval. I see no reason to depart from what is normal practice for bodies and, indeed, water authorities, that the Ministers who will appoint members to the NRA Board should be required to seek the approval of the Treasury. I cannot accept that it detracts from the independence or strength of the NRA for it to be required to secure the agreement of the Treasury to the pay and pensions of members of the NRA board. It is surely reasonable that the Treasury should seek to maintain some consistency and compatability between different NDPB boards.
As regards the remarks made by my noble mend Lord Crickhowell at Second Reading, at the Committee stage I clearly pointed out that we were listening to what my noble friend had to say. As regards the question of pay and rations, I would like to think that we have been more flexible concerning the rations, but we are unable to abolish the quartermaster.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am disappointed at what the Minister has said. He rests his case on the fact that what we have said is not new and that it is standard practice besides being normal. I wonder when the Minister and others will feel that it is proper to break away from precedent. Surely that is done after having listened to the arguments. If the arguments have failed that is one aspect, but the Minister substantially rested his arguments on the questions of precedent, custom and practice. The Minister certainly has not satisfied me.
We listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, and those of us on this side of the Chamber will have seen him nodding his head at one or two of the points that were made during this short debate. I am not minded to leave this
768
matter alone as we have done in other circumstances. I believe that the House should be invited to express an opinion. We desire to give not just more power but more power over a very limited range of functions. This new body should be treated with respect and given stature. In many places stature is measured not only by the size of the salaries but also by the ability of the people at the top to make decisions of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, used the phrase, "the clammy hand of the Treasury". As a Minister many years ago he probably speaks with more authority than I as regards the machinations of those in the Treasury with clammy or other hands when they are dealing with such issues.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, sticky hands.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I should say sticky fingers, but I shall not go to the extremities. I believe the case has been made in that the Government have been invited to make a small relaxation from custom and practice but they have decided not to do so. I intend to invite the House to express a view.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 133.

DIVISION NO 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Amherst, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ardwick, L.

Molloy, L.

Auckland, L.

Nicol, B.

Aylestone, L.

Northfield, L.

Blease, L.

Ogmore, L.

Blyth, L.

Parry, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Phillips, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rea, L.

David, B.

Renton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rochester, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Scanion, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shepherd, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Walston, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Willis, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McCarthy, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winstanley, L.

769

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Joseph, L.

Aldington, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimball, L.

Allerton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Layton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marley, L.

Brain, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brookes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Moyne, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Clinton, L.

Norrie, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Pender, L.

Craigton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Radnor, E.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Renwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Dundee, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Elibank, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Faithfull, B.

Seebohm, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Sharpies, B.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Somers, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Greenway, L.

Sudeley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Teynham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thurlow, L.

Halsbury, E.

Torrington, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trafford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tranmire, L.

Harvington, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Holderness, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Yarborough, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 191, line 43, leave out ("numbers and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 7 would remove the requirement for the Treasury to approve
770
the numbers and terms and conditions of service of NRA staff. As I made clear in Committee, it is normal for staff of a non-departmental public body to have terms and conditions subject to the Secretary of State's approval, with the agreement of the Treasury. The main responsibility for control and accountability for questions concerning a non-departmental public body's staff, pay and conditions rests with the sponsor department.
However, we recognise the importance of giving the NRA proper management responsibility, and have taken very careful note of the comments of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell at Second Reading.
That is why we have brought forward government Amendment No. 6 which removes the requirement for the approval of the Secretary of State—and the Treasury—to the numbers of staff employed by the NRA. This is not of course the same as Amendment No. 7 which would also remove the requirement for the Treasury's, although not the Secretary of State's, approval to the terms and conditions of staff. We could not accept the removal of the whole of this subparagraph relating to Treasury control, because, as I made clear at Committee stage, Ministers are ultimately answerable for the use of public funds by the NRA, and this must include the terms and conditions on which it employs staff.
However, we recognise that it is important to avoid unnecessary controls. The control on the numbers of staff does seem to be an unnecessary control. What is important is that there is a proper control on the total running costs of the NRA. We accept that, within that total cost, it is entirely reasonable for the NRA management to decide on the precise numbers of staff that it employs. Again, as I made clear at the Committee stage, we would hope to ensure that the detailed arrangements between the NRA and the department strike the right balance between public accountability and the need to encourage mangement responsibility. The existence of a requirement for ministerial approval of terms and conditions of NRA staff does not mean that Ministers and civil servants will be second guessing all the decisions of the NRA on these matters. I am quite sure that workable arrangements can be devised that meet both the requirements of public accountability and, importantly, the requirements for the NRA to manage its own organisation with the necessary degree of autonomy and independence. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister did not read that speech with a great deal of conviction and I can understand why. The fact of the matter is that by agreeing—and we welcome his agreement—that the Treasury and the Secretary of State should no longer have control over the numbers of National Rivers Authority staff, he has blown a gaping hole in his case against Amendment No. 7. That amendment says that the Treasury should not have control over the terms and conditions of service of staff.
The only conceivable point for retaining Treasury control over the terms and conditions of service is the control of public expenditure. But as soon as the

771
Government have agreed that the numbers of staff are not to be controlled centrally by the Treasury and by the Secretary of State there is no longer any control over the aggregate amount of public expenditure. Therefore the argument against Amendment No. 7 disappears.
Amendment No. 7 says that the Treasury should no longer have control over the terms and conditions of service; in other words, it is trying to avoid a particularly useless and even nasty little piece of interference by the Treasury in what should be a proper management responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. The authority is recruiting staff and has already named the staff who will form part of the authority when it is established all over the country.
Such staff possess a wide variety of technical and scientific skills and also have local knowledge of managerial ability. Therefore Civil Service scales are not appropriate for such staff. Such terms and conditions must be negotiated according to the needs of the National Rivers Authority. It is a new kind of authority as the Government continually remind us; it is a new regulatory body and is a more detailed body than there is for any other privatised industry. However, according to the Government, we must still have Treasury control over the terms and conditions of service.
If the Government had continued to resist the urging of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on Second Reading—and of other noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading and also in Committee—and had not agreed to bring forward Amendment No. 6, we would not have agreed with them but we would at least have seen the logic of their position. However, now that they have agreed to lose control over the aggregate expenditure of the National Rivers Authority on its staff, what on earth is the point of them keeping control of the terms and conditions of service? I urge the Government to think again on the matter. I think that they have got themselves into an impossible position in this respect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 192, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the right thing for me to do in the circumstances is to move Amendment No. 7 in order to receive a Government response. Although Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 were grouped together, the debate took such a truncated form that there was no opportunity for the Minister to reply to the issue of the relationship between the two. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, again I support this amendment. I shall, however, be interested to hear what my noble friend says in response. It seems to me that the principle involved is almost the same—although not quite—as it was on Amendment No. 5 where the Government won a handsome majority. Therefore it would be a waste of time to vote again on this amendment, but the principle is
772
established and we shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say on the matter.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on Amendment No. 7. What worries me about the Government's reply on the matter is that if sub-paragraph (6) remains, which requires "the consent of the Treasury", what is there left for the Secretary of State to do? There are various references to him in this part of the schedule, including sub-paragraph (3), where it specifies that certain actions are to be carried out with his approval or consent. However, what is the point in the Secretary of State giving his approval or consent to such matters if at the end of the day the Treasury has the final say?
There is little point in the Minister saying, as I think he said—although I may be mistaken—that the Treasury will not ask to second guess; but, of course, it is asked to do so. Indeed it is inherent in and central to the manner in which sub-paragraph (3) is drafted. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about voting again on the matter so soon after the last Division; there seems little point in so doing. However, in my view the Minister should take the matter away and look more closely at it. I hope that he has listened to what my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about such matters and that he will realise that second guessing is inherent in this part of the Bill and therefore should be removed therefrom.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I hesitated throughout the debate on the Bill to speak about the powers to be given to an authority which it is intended that I should chair. It seemed to me that that course of action was the right one. However, on Second Reading—and, indeed, when speaking on an earlier amendment—I sought to give guidance to the House about the advice given to the Government by the advisory committee. As my words have been quoted back to me on many occasions during this debate, I think that it would be right if I gave some clarification on the views of the NRA Advisory Committee in the matter.
The truth of the matter is that the amendment put forward by the Opposition, which was defeated earlier today, did not really address the issue which is now being debated; it addressed the issue of whether the pay and pensions of the members of the authority should be supervised. I have no objection to the principle that the pay of the members of the authority should be decided by the Government, along with members of other such authorities.
The issue I raised on Second Reading was a separate issue to which this sub-paragraph refers. It is what I described as a pay and rations matter. I do not disguise the fact that the advice which the NRAAC has given is that it would have preferred to have had a more relaxed regime than is contained in the Bill. There are precedents elsewhere; for example, the Civil Aviation Authority is treated as a nationalised industry and controls such matters itself. However, we are far too late in the proceedings of this Bill to follow that particular route. Nevertheless, I have taken comfort from the progress which has been made.

773
I welcome the fact that the control over numbers has been deleted by the Government by way of amendment and I am very much encouraged by the words used by my noble friend, when responding earlier, about the terms of the financial memorandum. I say that because if the Bill were to pass through this place unamended, the terms of that memorandum would be most important.
There have been published documents issued by the Government about the arrangements for non-departmental public bodies. There was such a major document issued in 1985. That document makes clear that where less than 50 per cent. of the finance of a public body comes from public funds, there should not be detailed control over such matters. Therefore, I am increasingly optimistic that what my noble friend is saying is that the financial memorandum will be drafted in such a way so that the NRA will indeed be able to control the pay and the terms and conditions of service of its employees, its directors and its senior management, and that it will have reasonable management flexibility for so doing. However, such issues are not being settled and are not dealt with in this amendment. I do not support the particular amendment because that does not seem to me to be the point here.
The advice being given to the Government at present by the NRAAC is that the financial memorandum should be drafted in a way which allows the NRA to have the fullest possible control over the management of its own affairs. That seems to the NRAAC to be sensible, both from the point of view of managing a large and important public body and from the point of view of the government department which should not be wasting a great deal of time deciding whether an individual should have one type of car or another or whether management should, or should not, be able to pay £1,000, more or less, to recruit someone. It is unlikely that those decisions will be taken better in the department. In the light of what my noble friend has said, I hope that when we come to agree the financial memorandum, the Government will accept the advice of the NRAAC.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I sympathise entirely with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton and Lord Crickhowell. I invite my noble friend the Minister in his reply to the amendment to give us an assurance that the terms of reference for the financial memorandum will reflect the widest degree of operational management consistent with good management, given that the Government have to have a view about the overall financial parameters. One would expect that to be so.
To add to the example of deciding on one make of car or another, it is also possible to envisage bonus packages and so forth. So long as the overall financial parameters are not breached, we should go for the maximum possible managerial freedom. I hope that my noble friend's reply will contain some assurances that the financial memorandum will reflect the NRA's wide managerial control.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, so far as pay and rations are concerned, there is no doubt that on a reading of this paragraph of the schedule, the Treasury will have the last word. If the financial memorandum is to modify that, all well and good. However, the schedule, and after all this is what the Government propose should be enacted, says:
"The Authority may pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities…in respect of …its officers or employees as it may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine".
The final sub-paragraph provides:
"The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving of an approval under this paragraph"
As far as I can see, what that says is that once the NRA has recruited its staff and has decided what it would like to pay them, how it would like to grade them and what conditions of service it would like to offer, it would then have to negotiate with the Secretary of State. He, in turn, would have to pass a memorandum to the Treasury which would go through it with a fine toothed comb and either agree or disagree. That is what the Bill says.
If the financial memorandum is going to say something different, let us hear about it. As things stand, the subject about which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has complained is precisely what the Bill says should be done; namely, that the Treasury should determine pay and rations.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has produced a seductive argument. He says that even though this is a non-departmental public body it is a different kind of non-departmental government body, so the Government's argument that there should be parity of arrangements with previous non-departmental bodies should not apply. The noble Lord will not be surprised to find that I do not agree with that analysis.
The terms and conditions of service of people in the public service are properly matters in which Ministers and the Treasury can have an interest. However, that does not mean that Civil Service terms and conditions must be applied. What the sub-paragraph provides for is that the terms and conditions of NRA staff must be agreed by Ministers. We are not saying that they have to fulfil Civil Service conditions.
I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Blatch that the Government's primary concern is to control overall financial parameters; it is not to encumber the NRA with bureaucracy and red tape. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell clearly set out what he felt was the right way to approach the matter. I can only say that I agree with what he said. He was clear in what he required to be done. The control and responsibility at the end of the day must rest with Ministers. That is a fact that we shall not be able to get away from. We cannot avoid it. Because of that, I am unable to shift my position as much as the amendment would require me to do. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will understand why. If he were at this Dispatch Box he would be saying exactly the same.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down can he say whether we shall know before Third Reading what is in the financial memorandum? I intervened in Committee to say that the argument that we have always dealt with non-departmental public bodies in a certain way is no argument at all. Unless the financial memorandum is satisfactory and there is some independence so that this type of arguing with the Treasury is avoided. I do not believe that the House will want to accept the Bill as it stands. It may at the next stage accept an amendment of the kind moved by the noble Lord.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, discussions are taking place with the department, the NRAAC and the Treasury. We are satisfied that the arrangements will provide what we propose—a sensible basis for NRA management independence together with a recognition that the NRA will be responsible for spending money which is voted by Parliament. That is what I was trying to say. I have said it again. I hope that it has partically satisfied my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again, perhaps I may ask my noble friend before he sits down why, if that is so, we need sub-paragraph (6) which says:
"The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving of an approval under this paragraph"
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we return to the position that I took three amendments ago which is that we cannot abolish the quartermaster.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a former quartermaster's clerk, never having aspired to the rank of quartermaster, I wonder whether the Minister appreciates a quartermaster's range of activities. One thing that quartermasters do not cover is pay, although they do cover rations.
Leaving aside the arrangements within the Royal Artillery, which is the only part of the Army I know, the Minister has not responded adequatley to the concerns which have been expressed, principally from his own side of the House. When we have the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, and Lord Renton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lady Blatch, all asking him to think again about this matter—there was not one voice raised in his support—I wonder whether he would not be well advised to give a little more than he has done so far.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made the point clearly. Whatever may be in the financial memorandum—we do not know that—the Bill is clear. The Bill, as amended, says that the Treasury and the Secretary of State have no control over the numbers of staff, so they have no control over the amount of money being spent; but they have control over the terms and conditions of service, which is the detail upon which the staff are to be appointed. That is patently absurd. It is a failure of logic with which the Government have not caught up on their thinking. I do not blame them. It is a complicated
776
Bill. I can see how they have got themselves into this trap. They are in a trap, and they must find some way out of it.
If the Minister wishes to stop me dividing the House, he will have to come up with something better than that and take advantage of the leave which I am sure the House will give him. As things stand, this is not a satisfactory situation, and as amended the Bill is not satisfactory; it is not coherent as amended. I ask the Minister whether there is anything else he can say to us.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said just now that it was contradictory to free the number of employees but to control the remuneration terms and all the rest of it. We had the example of cars. In many circumstances in the public sector or the quasi-public sector numbers are very often not dictated by the Treasury—although they are paid by the Treasury—where the total global sum is distributed by the authority concerned, usually on a fixed rate of the basis of remuneration, terms and conditions, but not specifying numbers.
Although I accept much of what the noble Lord says, I hope he will accept that it is not always true that it is necessarily an anomaly. I might add in parenthesis that it would seem that there is some confusion here between the argument which the noble Lord is putting forward and what my noble friend the Minister is saying. The confusion appears to be that my noble friend says that there will be a global sum, subject to Treasury approval, and many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, say, "Ah, but what we want is to have that control removed". If I am right—and I am asking whether that is what my noble friend is saying—it would seem to me that there is less argument than there would appear to be. Provided the Treasury approval goes only to the global sum but allows the NRA the other independence with regard to numbers, managerial control and so forth, I cannot see that I or my noble friends would have any difficulty in understanding that the ultimate control of the distribution of public money—that is the global sum—must lie with the Treasury.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very glad that I had not sat down before the noble Lord intervened because he made my point very clearly. The point is that there is no global sum laid down in the Bill. A global sum was in effect laid down in the Bill previously because there was Treasury control over numbers and terms and conditions of service. But now that the control over numbers has been removed, there is no global sum left in the Bill.
Therefore the noble Lord's very quarter-hearted support of the Government fails completely. The plain fact is that if we have removed control over one part of it, we cannot have a global sum. If we have a global sum we cannot remove one element of the control and leave the other element untouched.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again but, with respect, what he is saying is not so. This is the method by which large parts of the public sector expenditure are controlled.

777
They are given this money and told to get on with it, so to speak. The numbers, the decisions, the executive freedom and all the rest of it lie with them. In that sense this has not changed. It does not alter the fact that ultimately the Treasury has control. What it does alter is merely the freedom to employ the numbers appropriate to the management considerations which the NRA may exercise.
With respect to the noble Lord, I think he has misinterpreted my remarks. They were not supposed to be half-hearted, quarter-hearted or anything else in support of the Government. I hoped that I was trying to clarify the position. I was asking both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend about this. So long as we are arguing on the question of whether or not it is within a global sum that the control of the Treasury is exercised, or whether that will be the intention of the Government, that is quite a different kettle of fish from the position for which the noble Lord is at present arguing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer is very simple: there is no global sum anywhere on the face of the Bill. We are asked to rely on a financial memorandum which we have not seen. I suggest to the House and to the Government that it is not adequate to rely on a financial memorandum which we have not seen. Unless it can be shown clearly to the contrary, the concerns of noble Lords on all sides of the House that what is being maintained here is a control of the detail of employment without a control on the total sum of money involved will not go away. I believe I was asked to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I was not asking the noble Lord to give way. When he has finished his observations I shall say a few words too.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord will be out of order. It is my amendment and I am supposed to be winding up on it. We are at Report stage.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, then perhaps the noble Lord will give way, with his habitual courtesy and adroitness. He stung me into an intervention simply by the observation he made that the Minister was faced with a debate in which there had not been a single speech in support of the Government. As I understood the speech of my noble friend Lord Trafford, it was broadly favourable to the Government. I think it would be quite wrong for my noble friend the Minister to go back to his department and say that there was no support for these words in your Lordships' House.
These words are frequently used in statutes. They are a common form where one is dealing with the employment of people in what one may call the public sector. There is nothing unusual about them. Therefore the onus is perhaps on the noble Lord opposite to say why the NRA should be exempted from a control which applies to a great many other people in the public sector.
778
I should like to widen the debate a little because I think there is a real point of substance and of principle here in the way that we work government. In the public sector, if one section of workers obtains an advance in pay quite out of line with what the main body of people in the public sector receive, that is then used as grounds for agitation, for action of all sorts, to try to upgrade all the rest to the level of those who, because there has been no Treasury control, have received an increase.
I cannot remember whether the noble Lord faced these problems in government, as I did. If he did have to face the problem of very high totals of expenditure on the public service, of the inflationary effect of large increases in pay in the public service, I think he would realise the very natural and proper concern of the Treasury to keep some control over it. Of course, it is money for old rope for leaders of the trade unions concerned because they are able to say, "Look, the NRA has got this wonderful settlement. The whole of the Civil Service should have it". It is only too easy for them.
However, if we look at it from the point of view of those who have to conduct the affairs of state and manage the public economy, the picture is very different indeed. The Treasury has always—in my view rightly—taken the view that strict control of rates of remuneration in the public sector should remain in the Treasury. If there is an overwhelming case it can agree to an exception. But in general the idea is to prevent increases out of line with the rest of the pay of the service. Those can and will, from all experience, be used to undermine the existing rates and to support increases.
Therefore I say with great respect to the noble Lord that the Government are not without support on the matter. Those of us who served at the Treasury—and I had the honour of doing so for two stints—know that there are real and valid reasons for maintaining this control. I know, equally from experience, that it is all too easy to say, "Oh, the Treasury is restrictive, and all the rest of it; why should it have these powers?", but the noble Lord, like your Lordships, knows that it is upon the Treasury's management of the economy that the well-being of our country depends.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend——
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that an intervention can be intervened in. There can be one intervention at a time. I had better maintain my position at this Dispatch Box without sitting down and let other noble Lords come in, one after another, rather than together.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has given renewed evidence of his three most distinctive and endearing characteristics. First, he has given evidence of his outstanding skill as a debater; secondly, he has given evidence of his Treasury experience; and, thirdly, he has given evidence of his unalterable loyalty to the Government in all circumstances. That has never yet been breached to

779
my knowledge. As I believe the noble Lord knows, I have never held a position in government, but I have met a payroll for nearly a quarter of a century. When one meets a payroll one sets oneself a budget which covers not only pay but all the activities of one's company or organisation. In doing so, one takes into account how much one can allow oneself for manpower and how much one can allow oneself for other things.
Earlier we debated the issue of subcontracting. It was pointed out with some reason, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the NRA should have the power to subcontract some of its activities where they were not suitably carried out by the permanent staff. Therefore the NRA must have the power to strike a balance on any occasion between non-direct manpower costs and the manpower part of its total budget. Therefore the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it may be tempted, without Treasury control, to run amok, so to speak, and to break public pay guidelines falls to the ground.
I forget who mentioned the Civil Aviation Authority. However, there are previous examples of public bodies which do not have this detailed control over pay and conditions.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when the Civil Aviation Authority was set up, originally the pay scales in the authority were determined by the Department of Trade, under which it worked. However, after a year or two, no doubt partly as a result of education by the then chairman of the CAA, we got rid of that and obtained freedom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to have the noble Lord's confirmation. Perhaps the noble Lord now regrets that he was not in his seat when his noble friend Lord Renton referred to the clammy hand of the Treasury. The situation is as it was before these interventions, all of which I may say I very much welcome. The situation is that the Government are in an impossible position. If the Minister is to avoid a vote which will depend, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for a majority for the Government on those who have not heard the debate, he should intervene and say he will think about the matter again before Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that a second Division would be undesirable and unnecessary. However, as has been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the point on which we divided before was a different point. It was concerned with the pay of the members of the authority. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, quite understandably said that he had no strong feelings on that matter. We are now concerned with a much more important issue than the pay of members of the authority. We are now concerned with the managerial responsibility of the National Rivers Authority and its ability to construct a budget encompassing manpower and other costs in a sensible and independent way. This is a very important matter and a much more important one than that contained
780
in Amendment No. 5. I suggest to the Government that they would be well advised to have second thoughts on this matter before I am forced to sit down for the final time.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall again rise. It is interesting that we have turned round 180 degrees. I was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as regards the fact that he felt the NRA was unable to fix its own rates of pay. When I rose finally to point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that that was far from the case, and that with the passing of Amendment No. 6 we had also removed any control on numbers of employees of the NRA thereby, I believe, satisfactorily answering his point in that area, the noble Lord then turned the agrument round and said we were not talking about that. He said we were talking about global control.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may believe he has a run going for him on this side as well as on the other side of the House. However, he cannot expect me to stand here and say that the Treasury is willing to abrogate all responsibility for expenditure. I cannot do that and that is why I am not willing to give him what he is asking of me now.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord leads the interventions of other Ministers who have not heard the debate. I suppose that the right thing for me to do is to seek an opportunity to discuss the matter with the noble Lord between now and Third Reading. I do not think his response has adequately reflected the arguments that have been made.
We all agree, of course, that the National Rivers Authority has to have a budget. However, we are saying that within that budget, particularly now that controls over the numbers of employees have been removed—in other words, the head count has been removed—this vestigial control over terms and conditions of service is simply out of keeping with the rest of the Government's intentions. That is where we stand. Without in any way withdrawing the arguments that I have made and which have been so widely supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House, I think it is best that I withdraw the amendment and seek an opportunity to discuss the matter.
If, on the other hand, Ministers are now indicating that they will not give me permission to withdraw the amendment, I must say three things. First, there are other ways of raising this matter than the form of words used for this amendment. The issue will not go away simply by denying me permission to withdraw my amendment. Secondly, I think it is an abuse of the procedures of this House not to allow me to withdraw my amendment simply because the Government are embarrassed by the argument. Thirdly, the clear intention in denying me the right to withdraw my amendment is to avoid discussions between now and a later stage. I reject all of those three suppositions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that this

781
amendment be withdrawn? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be withdrawn?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION NO 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kagan, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blatch, B.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blyth, L.

Molloy, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brain, L.

Nicol, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Northfield, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rea, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Renton, L.

David, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Russell, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Serota, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Stedman, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Ezra, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Forester, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Underhill, L.

Glenamara, L.

Walston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Grey, E.

White, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Willis, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Cross, V.

Allerton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Balfour, E.

Dundee, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Belstead, L.

Elibank, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elles, B.

Borthwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Ferrers, E.

Brookes, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Caithness, E.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnock, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Harvington, L.

Craigton, L.

Havers, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Henley, L.

782

Hesketh, L.

Pender, L.

Hives, L.

Radnor, E.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hooper, B.

Renwick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochdale, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Sharples, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Layton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Margadale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Marley, L.

Teynham, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Torrington, V.

Mersey, V.

Trafford, L.

Middleton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Morris, L.

Trumpington, B.

Moyne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Munster, E.

Vinson, L.

Nelson, E.

Westbury, L.

Norrie, L.

Wise, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Onslow, E.

Wynford, L.

Orkney, E.

Yarborough, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
6.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 106.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Ampthill, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blatch, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brain, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Northfield, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L.

Parry, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Renton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Russell, E.

Ezra, L.

Serota, B.

Forester, L.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winstanley, L.

783

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Allerton, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Layton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brookes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Middleton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clinton, L.

Monson, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nelson, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norrie, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cross, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Rochdale, V.

Elibank, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sharpies, B.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Teynham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Trafford, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Tranmire, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Havers, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vinson, L.

Hesketh, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Yarborough, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Joseph, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 195, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. The amendment returns to concerns raised at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and others. The issue is the removal of the funding constraint on the NRA Whereby the Secretary of State may require any surplus held by the authority, whether on capital or revenue account, to be paid to the Treasury. The amendment would remove that power.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, spoke in detail at he Committee stage about the functions of the NRA
784
and its likely expenditure profile. He pointed to government assurances that the NRA would be given all the resources that it needed but drew attention to the fact that such resources were vulnerable to the extent that they relied on the Exchequer grant. I made a similar point on Second Reading. So did other noble Lords.
In the view of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, the scope for the NRA to raise funding through charges to a greater extent than presently envisaged would be preferable. However, the fact that any surplus might be appropriated by the Treasury would make it more likely that it would be spent before the end of the financial year. Equally, the opposite view could be taken; namely, that any balance should be spent on the environment before being taken back to the Treasury and that any other policy on the part of the Government would be at the expense of the environment. A rush to spend balances before appropriation is not conducive to planned expenditure.
If the Government's objective is to exercise a financial discipline on the NRA and not allow it to become profligate in spending grant, it would surely be possible to devise a system whereby, if the authority becomes regularly and substantially profitable after the initial years, its grant could be progressively adjusted over a period of time. What is undesirable is that unspent funds, which could be put to good use, should have to be given to the Consolidated Fund. The Government say that they do not require the NRA to make a profit. The issue is that an increase in income for the NRA from various water users is a possible source of spending on the environment.
Much has been made of the need to raise water charges to consumers to cover that spending. Although the amounts involved may not be substantial, designated schemes under the particular control of the NRA could benefit directly from relatively small amounts of well targeted expenditure. That point was also made by several noble Lords at the Committee stage. If the Government are concerned that the money might be spent other than wisely on environmental projects, it would presumably be within their power, either by amendment to the Bill or by direction to the NRA, to establish the basis on which the money should be spent or invested.
As I have said, that is the purpose of Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 9 is consequential. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has pointed out, this amendment and the principles and policies behind it were very well aired in Committee by my noble friend Lord Hesketh who said that the NRA will be a public sector body exercising monopoly powers in respect of some of its functions. It must therefore be subject to the financial controls appropriate to a body responsible for voted expenditure. These controls do not allow the carrying over of large surpluses or deficits from one year to the next. We have made clear that the right way for a national body like the NRA to be funded is by grant-in-aid from the Exchequer.

785
Part of the planning process required for deciding the necessary levels of grant-in-aid for the NRA will involve the NRA in providing accurate and reliable forecasts of its income and expenditure. We accept that it may sometimes be necessary for the NRA to carry over relatively small amounts of cash at the end of a financial year to allow for the normal flow of business. We do not anticipate that the NRA will carry forward deficits on the majority of its functions. With proper planning the NRA should be able to work within its budgets. If cash-flow requirements so dictate, there is provision under paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 for the NRA to undertake temporary borrowing within the year concerned. In an extreme case, there could be an application for additional grant-in-aid.
We must make it absolutely clear that if a large surplus were to arise that would indicate that grant-in-aid had been given to the NRA in advance of need; taxpayers would have contributed more than was necessary towards its funding. The only other way in which the NRA could generate such a surplus would be if, at some time in the future, it was in a position to raise more in charges than it needed to finance its activities and did so—in other words, that it began to make a profit. In either of these situations, the appropriate course must be for the Exchequer to recover the surplus. The fact that the NRA depends for its funding on the Treasury must mean that any surplus should be returned to the Treasury. I should emphasise that the position with regard to flood defence is rather different. First, it will not require the support of grant-in-aid as the costs of the NRA's flood defence work will be met entirely through local authority precepts and MAFF and Welsh Office capital grants. Secondly, we recognise that with this major area of NRA activity factors such as the weather may sometimes lead to significant disruptions to planned work programmes or to the need for extra work. Provision already exists with Section 47 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 for the carrying forward of any excesses or deficiencies that may arise on water authorities' land drainage accounts as a result of changes to the planned annual programme of works. That power will transfer to the NRA when it takes up the water authorities' responsibilities for flood defence.
I hope that what I have said has convinced your Lordships that Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are undesirable. The power to recover surpluses which is set out in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 is well precedented. It is a discretionary power that could be used only after consultation with the NRA.
I should like to repeat once again, as we have so often done in the past, the firm undertaking that the NRA will be provided with the resources it needs to carry out its functions. There is absolutely no need for it to create surpluses to fulfil its duties.
With that particular explanation of the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw it.
7 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the reply he has given on
786
Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. There is a point on which the Government's case is rather weaker than he made out; this emerged in some detail during our deliberations in Committee. It is that the NRA could cater for a wider range of activity than its grant will allow by raising modest charges on a number of activities on the strict understanding that those charges would be devoted to environmental purposes, and in that way the environmental aspect of the NRA's work would be strengthened. Indeed, the Minister did not rule out that possibility in his reply.
However, it would be a major disincentive, both now and in the future—if such a policy were to be pursued by the NRA and responded to in measure by those who were making a contribution towards those environmental improvements—if the basis of contribution was that there was a strong likelihood that, as a result of creating a surplus at year end, whether on revenue or capital account, the money so subscribed would fall to the Consolidated Fund. That seems to be a disincentive of a major kind. From our point of view it means that the NRA is going to be circumscribed in that particular respect, even though I accept the Minister's assurance that for its normal functions the NRA is going to be amply funded by the Government. That is a welcome announcement and confirms what we were told at Second Reading and at the Committee stage.
In addition, we should take note of the fact that the flood expenditure of the NRA is excluded from the possibility of appropriation of surplus. As the noble Earl has said, that also is covered by existing legal provisions.
On the question of recovering surpluses, I particularly welcome the assurance which the Minister gave me that this power will not be used in respect of main grant; he said, first, that it is a discretionary power and that it certainly will not be used even if surpluses begin to emerge without extensive and prior consultation with the NRA. I am sure that that assurance will be welcomed by the NRA and by those who are charged with the responsibilities which the Bill will place upon that body. In that light, and given that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 196, line 31, after ("loan") insert ("and with the consent of the Treasury").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 10 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
These amendments concern a matter which was debated at some length in Committee but which deserves a further airing in the rather different form that we have now put it forward because of the concerns which were expressed about the amendments brought forward by the Government at Report stage in another place. The House will recall that the Secretary of State introduced amendments at Report stage in another

787
place—which I say at once were intended to be helpful—which gave the National Rivers Authority the power to borrow for unplanned expenditure on flood damage. The words which the Secretary of State used were expenditure:
"for which it had been impossible to plan".
We argued in Committee that that did not make very good sense because experience in the recent past had been that there were a substantial number of items of flood relief expenditure which ought to be planned and which ought not to be treated as an emergency. The money would be more effectively spent if such items were planned rather than treated as an emergency. Yet they were of such a size that to finance them out of current expenditure rather than out of borrowing would be a big mistake financially. The particular example which was given was the Thames Barrier which cost £105 million. If similar expenditure had to be financed without borrowing, it would have to come from the precepts of the regional land drainage committees and therefore from the county councils or metropolitan borough councils in the area.
The point about very large items of flood relief expenditure is that if they are any good they have a very long pay-back period. They are supposed to provide benefits over a very long period of time. In any other kind of business it would be thought to be proper for this to be treated as capital expenditure on which borrowing is possible rather than treated as current expenditure and required to be recouped entirely from precepts over the year or perhaps two or three years in which the expenditure actually occurred. The effect of treating it as current expenditure would be that there would be very large increases in the precepts on local authorities. This would start to cause a great deal of damage to the Government's control of local authority expenditure to which we know the Government pay so much attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—I am sorry to introduce his name again—in his Second Reading speech questioned whether the Secretary of State's restriction to expenditure for which it had been impossible to plan was wise. I agree with him. From the point of view both of sensible thinking about flood relief expenditure and the sensible financing of very large projects it is desirable that the expenditure should be based on borrowing powers and that it should be possible for it to be spread over a considerable period of time.
I am well aware that once one starts this line of argument one comes up against the clammy hand of the Treasury, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has so recently and felicitously put it. One comes up against the argument that one cannot have uncontrolled borrowing because that affects the public sector borrowing requirement even at a time when, as at present, we do not have any public sector borrowing requirement. We have only a public sector debt repayment.
Therefore in Amendment No. 10, instead of taking the phrase out, we have inserted, "with the consent of the Treasury". I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does not like it. However, if the noble Lord,
788
Lord Boyd-Carpenter, were in his place, he might agree that substantial amounts of borrowing ought not to take place without the knowledge of the Treasury. I can well understand the argument that it should be with the consent of the Treasury.
In Amendment No. 11 we are talking about the planned programme of works or emergency measures. In Amendment No. 12 we are widening it somewhat to talk about "programmes for the improvement of the environment". These are already the functions of the National Rivers Authority under Parts I and III of the Bill. The programmes for both flood relief and improvement to the environment are the proper concerns of the National Rivers Authority. We are not proposing in any way to extend the functions of the National Rivers Authority. The programmes may involve substantial amounts of expenditure with a very long pay-back period for which in any normal business borrowing would be right; they should be treated as capital expenditure. We are providing that the Treasury should have an overall control in order to maintain its control of the public sector borrowing requirement.
I believe that these amendments are a responsible reflection of the discussion that took place at Committee stage. I believe that they make good business sense for the National Rivers Authority. They reflect the concerns expressed at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and others. They do not involve any threat to public expenditure controls because of the requirement for Treasury consents. I commend the amendments to the House.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord should move Amendment No. 10. He will not be surprised that I oppose his amendment very strenuously. In Schedule 1 we already have the nonsense of the consent or approval of the Treasury being required on nine different occasions. I need not take up time referring to them. However, there are nine of them. If we add what is in paragraph 15(3) we bring it up to 10 because sub-paragraph (3) refers to "consultation with the Treasury".
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to bring the score to a total of 11. If I may say so, the one to which he has spoken is most inappropriate to the circumstances that we find here. It is a question of the authority being given power to borrow otherwise than by way of temporary loan—the implication there is that for temporary loans it does not need the consent from anyone; it can obtain them—such sums in sterling from the Secretary of State or the Minister as it may require for capital purposes in connection with flood defence functions.
Any loans obtained from the Secretary of State or the Minister have to appear on the accounts presented by the Secretary of State or the Minister to Parliament. That the consent of the Treasury should also be required is overdoing it. It is redundant. It is unnecessary. The Secretary of State or the Minister will have to take responsibility for

789
presenting their accounts to Parliament and receiving ex post facto approval for the loans that they have made to the National Rivers Authority, to do work which Parliament says that it has to do.
Why should we bring in the Treasury yet again? It is quite unnecessary. What is more, all these references to obtaining the consent of the Treasury are an adverse reflection on the machinery of Government. If the machinery of Government is working properly—as it normally does—the consent of the Treasury is quite unnecessary. I do not wish to use too strong an expression; but it is not very complimentary to Ministers, including the whole of the Cabinet, to keep on putting into a statute that they shall obtain the consent of the Treasury.
One of these days I hope that the Government on both Front Benches in both Houses will wake up to the poor compliments that they are being paid by having to have these words constantly inserted in statutes. The fact that they have been inserted for years—and we know that they have—does not mean to say that they should be inserted for the rest of time.
I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—who showed great wisdom earlier on this matter—will say to himself, "No, perhaps this is not an amendment that I ought to press."
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—since he will not have another opportunity to answer although I shall—I observe, first, that he makes these comments about the Treasury in the absence of his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Secondly, would he care to pass a judgment—that I would much respect—on my other amendments, Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 which are substantive amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I had not taken up time. I have considered them. The noble Lord's other amendments make it even worse. I shall say why in relation to one of them. The noble Lord wants the consent of the Treasury to be obtained for a loan for emergency measures in pursuance of these functions of flooding control. Goodness me, my Lords, the Treasury can take a long time! It therefore makes matters worse.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am still a little unclear about the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I can understand, and to a great extent share, his feelings about the Treasury. Anyone who has been the chairman of even the most modest quango knows how infuriating the Treasury can be. I am all for freeing oneself from the clammy hand, or what I would call the Gladstonian dead hand of the Treasury, wherever possible. However, I am very much concerned about Amendment No. 12. There could well be a situation in which it could be to the advantage of environmental interests if the borrowing powers of the National Rivers Authority were possibly extended, not necessarily including the Treasury. I hope therefore that serious consideration will be given to Amendment No. 12, in addition to
790
the difficulty about Amendment No. 10. I must admit that I was not here for the Committee discussion on this matter. Therefore I hesitate to do more than draw attention to what I suppose to be a highly desirable amendment at this stage of our deliberations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I agree that it would be less harmful if the consent of the Treasury did not have to be obtained. Therefore if Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 were moved without Amendment No. 10, that might be a little less harmful.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, pointed out, the substance of the amendments had a good airing in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage. They were given a somewhat draughty reception by my noble friend Lord Caithness.
Amendment No. 10 would require that borrowing by the NRA, other than by way of temporary loan and as set out in the remainder of paragraph 18, shall be subject to the consent of the Treasury. It is perhaps difficult to reconcile the Opposition's usual aversion to the Treasury's involvement in matters affecting the NRA's financial arrangements with the wording of Amendment No. 10. But I should point out that as the making of loans will be subject to the Treasury's approval, as my noble friend Lord Renton has already pointed out, under Schedule 1, paragraph 19(1), Amendment No. 10 is unnecessary. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 have the more substantial effects of enabling the NRA to borrow for a planned programme of flood defence works, and for its environmental improvement programmes.
As my noble friend Lord Caithness explained in Committee, we considered very carefully the extent to which the NRA would need borrowing powers before amending the Bill in another place so as to provide for the possibility of borrowing in respect of its flood defence function. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear when these amendments were introduced, the use of borrowing powers for flood defence is normally intended to be restricted to circumstances where works are needed for which it had not been possible to plan. This is because water authorities have generally managed without significant new borrowings in respect of flood defence in recent years. There is therefore no reason why the NRA should not be able to provide for the normal run of its flood defence works without recourse to borrowing. The possibility of an unexpected need for major expenditure—as could occur after a major flooding emergency—is the main reason we consider that it is right for the NRA to have borrowing powers.
However, we noted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Committee that when there was an extensive programme of flood protection works it could be difficult for local authorities to fund the NRA's precept out of a single year's revenue income. We accept that there are circumstances where this could be the case. But we do not consider it right that it should be the NRA that should borrow

791
in these circumstances. It must be right for the authorities themselves to take decisions to defray expenditure, given that the NRA's flood defence work will be carried out ultimately for them and paid for by them. It will be possible for local authorities to receive credit approvals to cover such borrowing under the new capital finance system.
We see no case for borrowing for the remainder of the NRA's functions. These functions are generally supported by Exchequer grant-in-aid, or there is the facility in the Bill to pay grant-in-aid in respect of these functions. This means that it will always be possible to take account of the need for major capital expenditure in the public expenditure survey bids submitted by the NRA. On the rare occasions when a major capital project was required, increased grant-in-aid could be paid to finance it. There is therefore no need for the NRA to borrow on these functions. In this respect and with these arguments I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the recognition by the Government of the advice given by the NRA that there might be a problem over local authority precepts. It was our principal remaining point of concern, particularly in the light of the fact that the amendment moved in another place is entirely satisfactory as a clause. The only issues that concerned us were the statements made by Ministers at the time about its application. I do not understand the details of the local authority borrowing mechanisms enough to comment about the way in which this will work, but it is a recognition that will be welcomed throughout all the organisations involved in the flood defence work around the country, among which there was great anxiety about these points.
The fact that the Government have recognised this problem and believe that they have brought forward a solution will be particularly welcome, especially as the clause as it stands is satisfactory, so long as the Government recognise that there is a problem and interpret the matter in the most reasonable and practical way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, two issues have been raised in the debate. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will forgive me, there was the minor or secondary issue, and the other was the substantive issue of how to secure major capital works and planned programmes for flood relief and for environmental improvement, paid for sensibly. On the first issue, which is Treasury consent, I should have been prepared if necessary to withdraw that amendment and to pursue Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a point about the need for Treasury consent. All I can say is that introducing Amendment No. 11 is evidence, if evidence were needed, of my concern for the proprieties, my moderation, my anxiety to achieve results by agreement rather than by confrontation, which has always been a feature of my approach to these matters. But if I find myself criticised from the left by the noble Lord, Lord Renton——
Lord Dean of Beswick: From the left, my Lords?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: From the left—then I listen very carefully to what he says. However, the question does not arise because the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has made what appears to me on the face of it a very useful reply. I should like to read it carefully before deciding whether any further action is required at another stage.
As I understand what the Minister has said, where substantial items of expenditure ought to be spread over a number of years the local authorities may—I can understand why he cannot say "shall", because not all proposals for capital expenditure are of equal value—be given the credit authority to borrow money for the purpose. It is better that such borrowings may be eligible for Exchequer grant, which would not otherwise be the case. If that is so, and if having studied the Minister's words carefully the local authorities are satisfied that this is an adequate protection, I merely thank him and I shall not return to the matter. If there are any other concerns on reading the Minister's remarks, I am sure he will understand that I shall feel obliged to return to the matter.
The Minister has shown a recognition of the issue at stake. It is on that basis that it is appropriate that I should seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with your Lordships' agreement, this may be an appropriate stage at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Report stage at 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: 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 Brooks of Tremorfa.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness Serota in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Modification of permitted hours]:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved the following amendment:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which it is passed.").
The noble Lord said: I wish to express my thanks to all noble Lords who supported me on the Second Reading of the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is simple. It was suggested to me that after the Bill receives Royal Assent some time will be necessary in order for the licensing authorities and the clubs to prepare themselves for its provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: From these Benches I wish to express support for the amendment. It is a tidying-up amendment which makes sense. It makes the Bill workable by giving the time needed for people to become organised. On that basis we support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ageed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.33 to 8.30 p.m.]

Water Bill
Consideration of Amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 2 [Regional rivers advisory committees]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 34, after ("committees") insert (", consisting of persons who are not members of the Authority,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 16 which is consequential and to Amendment No. 135 which is of a similar nature. I do not believe there is need to spend too much time on the amendments. They are entirely to do with the advisory committees which the NRA is obliged to form: first, the regional advisory committees and secondly, under Clause 135, the fisheries advisory committees.
Under the Bill it is possible for the NRA to place some of its own members upon the committees although the legislation says that they are not, so to speak, to stack the committees with them. I feel very strongly and others, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, agree, I believe, that the effectiveness of these advisory committees will to a certain extent, perhaps to a fairly large extent, be spoiled if they have members of the authority upon them. It will produce a rather strange situation of people sitting on an advisory committee advising another committee on which they also sit.
I am sure that both the regional and the fisheries committees will be of very considerable importance in the passing of information and ideas to the NRA. It is far better that they should be kept at arm's length. This will sharpen the impact of their advice. I am certain that liaison can be arranged in some more informal way than having NRA members upon those committees. Therefore, the amendment simply precludes members of the authority from sitting on the regional advisory committees and on the fisheries advisory committees. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when the Committee considered Clause 2, I undertook to reconsider the points put forward by noble Lords in support of a similar amendment. We have always made clear that the members of these committees should generally be outsiders. The reason for allowing for the possibility of a member of the NRA board being on a regional committee was that this could be useful in some very limited circumstances.
However, we have reflected further on this point and also consulted with the NRA Advisory Committee. We accept that there would be no particular difficulties in providing—as these amendments now do—that membership of the NRA board should not overlap with membership of any of the NRA's regional committees and that there would be positive advantage in the NRA's regional committees being made up entirely of non-board members. Consequently when the Committee was considering amendments to the fisheries provisions, my noble friend Lady Trumpington announced our intention to bring forward amendments for consideration on Report which would not permit NRA board members to serve on any of the three types of regional committees.
I am therefore grateful to my noble friend Lord Radnor for putting forward Amendments Nos. 13, 16 and 135 which deal with the regional rivers advisory committees and the regional fisheries advisory committees. I commend these amendments to the House together with my Amendment No. 133 which has the similar effect for regional flood defence Committees.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend, first, for saying that he would come forward with something and then for being as good as his word and, secondly, for filling in the gap of the flood relief committees which I had missed. I am sure that this is an improvement to the Bill. I am very grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("consider") and insert ("have regard to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to leave out the word "consider" at line 39 and to insert in place of that the words "have regard to". The amendment repeats an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh in Committee when he argued that the word "consider" was close to the bottom of the range of notice which had to be taken by a body such as the National Rivers

795
Authority or another organisation. The words "have regard to" are in our view at least one step further up the ladder. We argued then that it was important to have people of ability serving on the regional rivers committees and that they would need to be assured that the National Rivers Authority was paying serious attention to the advice which was coming forward. The amendment did not go one stage further in asking the National Rivers Authority to "take into account" the views of the regional rivers committees. It was put forward as a sensible proposal.
Furthermore, the document issued that day by the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee setting out details of its work appeared to make no reference to the recommendations of the RRACs in the way in which they would be treated by the authority. It was also the case that the Government seemed to be considering their position in relation to the proper role of RRACs given the existence of the document and their willingness to set out in response to an earlier amendment that RRACs would include important river interests such as recreation, conservation, industry, local government and agriculture.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said at col. 129 that the NRA Advisory Committee would be giving careful consideration to the terms of reference and composition of the RRACs and would be issuing the document referred to. The noble Earl said that he was confident that the NRA would pay careful attention to the points made in Committee about the role of the RRACs and would also welcome comments from interested parties. It is in those circumstances that this amendment is re-submitted in order to obtain a more considered response from the Government and, secondly, to underline to the advisory committees the need to pay serious attention to advice from the RRACs. We consider that the best way to do that is by amending the Bill rather than leaving the lax requirement of "consider" as an impediment to closer working relationships on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment which is very similar to an amendment moved in Committee would require the NRA to "have regard to" rather than to "consider" any representations made to it by an advisory committee. By now noble Lords will have had the opportunity to study the consultative document prepared by the NRA Advisory Committee on the NRA's regional committee structure. It will be clear from this document that the NRA Advisory Committee has already given considerable thought to establishing the right balance of membership and sensible terms of reference for the NRA's committees. I know too that the NRA Advisory Committee whose members have all now been offered appointments to the NRA board on its establishment takes very seriously the role of the regional committees and will note the concerns expressed by noble Lords.
However, as I made clear in Committee, this amendment would not affect the duties of the NRA with regard to representations of advisory committees. The words "to consider" are the
796
appropriate words to use in this context and are used in relation to representations in many other clauses of this Bill and in other legislation. Indeed, earlier today I noted that in his Amendment No. 4 the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would have the NRA "consider" the representations from his proposed regional divisions.
Clause 2 makes it a duty of the authority to consult its regional rivers advisory committees and to consider any representations made by those committees. Indeed, these important committees will be the focus for consultation by the NRA about all matters affecting river catchments at the regional level. Of course, the NRA will give reasonable consideration to any representations made to it by these advisory committees. It must be in the authority's own interests to do so. Indeed, these important committees will be the focus for consultation by the NRA about all matters affecting river catchments at regional level.
The NRA will give reasonable consideration to any representations made to it by these advisory committees and it must be in the authority's own interests to do so. Furthermore, as I made clear, Ministers will expect the NRA to comment in its annual report on the functioning of the regional rivers advisory committees and in particular to indicate the major issues on which the committees have been consulted or have offered advice, and the action taken on them by the NRA. Indeed, under Clause 149(4) the Secretary of State can require the NRA to include all such information in its annual report.
I am satisfied therefore that the Bill already satisfactorily provides for the views of the regional rivers advisory committees to be given appropriate consideration and publicity. It is for that reason we do not believe this amendment would add to the Bill and I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will see fit to withdraw it.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for his reply to the amendment and the further information that he has given regarding the obligation which the NRA will have, first, to comment in its annual report on the work of the RRACs and, secondly, to give in some detail its response to initiatives by the RRACs during the year in which the NRA is reporting. The fact that the Minister is looking for this to be done ensures, I believe, that it will be done and that due publicity will therefore be given to the work of these important river committees. For that reason it is appropriate for us not to quarrel excessively on whether the word "consider" would be better replaced by the three words "have regard to". As I said, I think the assurances are in the main satisfactory and for that reason I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 12, after ("question") insert ("including persons
representative of environmental and recreation organisations and
of local authorities in the region").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also returns to issues debated in Committee. An

797
amendment then asked specifically for representation on the regional rivers advisory committees nominated by or representing voluntary conservation and recreation bodies. At that time the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, indicated that the RRACs would have a membership of 15 to 20. Members would be selected from the following areas of interest: agriculture, forestry and landowner interests; conservation and landscape interests, including statutory and voluntary bodies; industry and commerce, including abstractors and dischargers and river dependent industries generally; local government; national parks authorities; and recreational interests, including sports councils. Water service and other interest groups would also be represented.
This range of representation set out by the Minister clearly goes wider than this specific amendment. The purpose of the amendment, however, is twofold. First, it is to argue that on the face of the Bill we should have reflected the statements, at least in outline, that Ministers made in Committee and which although welcome extend only to the initial appointments to the RRACs. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a different structure of appointments at a later stage if the NRA so decides. To highlight the particular need for representation of environmental and recreational organisations as suggested by an earlier amendment in Committee, and of local authorities in particular, it would be helpful if the Minister could state the means by which suggestions are likely to be sought from these two groups of organisations as to the representation envisaged.
For local authorities, for example, there will clearly be a need for some sort of selection to enable a small number of persons—perhaps two or three—to represent the local authorities in a substantial region covering broadly one-tenth of the country in each case. For example, does the Minister envisage discussions with local authority associations in seeking suggested names?
Whether or not this amendment is acceptable it would be helpful if the Minister would undertake to seek to find a form of words which, while not constraining the necessary flexibility in future years to vary in detail the balance of organisations appointed to reflect changing needs, nevertheless meets the broad purpose of the RRACs as advisory bodies representing the main interest groups involved. We believe that such formulation should be placed on the face of the Bill and in our view it would not inhibit the NRA if it were so included. For those reasons I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I believe it was suggested that my Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 should be grouped with this amendment. I decided that I would prefer to discuss my amendments separately because the amendments are trying to do marginally different things and I thought it would be a good idea to hear what was said on this amendment. I support this amendment, but it mixes the environmental, recreational and local authority
798
interests whereas my amendment specifically deals with the conservation aspect. Therefore although I should be delighted if the Government were to accept this amendment I felt I should give the reasons why I preferred to have my own amendments debated separately.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, on this amendment I make it quite clear from the outset that the regional rivers advisory committees will be important committees advising the NRA on its river basin management function. In the December 1987 policy statement, and repeatedly since, we made it clear that the committees will need to have members representative of all the main interests concerned in using and conserving the rivers, including the environmental, recreation and local government interests identified in this amendment and also industry and agriculture.
As the noble Lord knows, the NRA Advisory Committee has been giving considerable thought to the composition of these committees and to how they should be appointed and its views are set out in the consultative document issued on 2nd May. This document states that members would be selected from a list of areas of interest which include those specified in the amendments. The document goes on to state that, although the NRA will inevitably need to retain sufficient flexibility to make the membership appointments in each region reflect local circumstances and the regional balance of particular interests, such flexibility should operate within the constraints set down in the document which will constitute national guidelines on the role and composition of these committees.
The NRA Advisory Committee is already therefore in the process of drawing up national guidelines for its regional committees which wholly meet the provisions in Amendment No. 15. But I must emphasise again that these are committees of the NRA and it must be for the NRA to devise comprehensive guidelines for its own committees. It does not seem appropriate to include in the Bill a provision covering one of the many issues to be considered by the NRA in appointing its regional rivers advisory committees. For those reasons I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the guidance notes which he mentioned will provide sufficient scope for the voluntary conservation societies, which are perhaps not represented on the advisory bodies, to make their views adequately known? There is some concern among the voluntary organisations, particularly those which have representation on the consultative committees at present, that the umbrella organisations mentioned in the consultative document will not provide sufficient scope for individual bodies that may have a particular point of view, which it is important should be made known, to express themselves. Therefore this would need to be covered by the guidance notes to ensure that these organisations have some means of directly making their views known. Can the Minister assure us on that point?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this particular policy document is all-embracing. I can assure the noble Baroness that the membership will be selected from both statutory and voluntary bodies as is clearly laid out in Annex C. The noble Baroness has my assurance.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point. I do not need assuring on that point because I was perfectly aware from the consultative document that that would be so. But not all of the organisations that are currently represented on the committees will necessarily be represented on the new advisory committees. We wish to have an assurance that there will be some means by which they can make their views known, even if it is only through representation; but an adequate channel representing their views other than membership of the committees. That will need to be specified quite clearly in the guidance notes which the Minister mentioned in his speech.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, as the chairman of the body responsible for drawing up this document that has been referred to and as someone who has been told that he will be taking over the responsibilities of the NRA if this Bill is finally passed, would it be helpful to say that we fully understand and appreciate the point that has just been made? These documents are not in their final form. We are consulting and listening to representations about them. We have yet to receive large numbers of the representations.
What has been said by the noble Baroness indicates the need to have a flexible structure. One of the points of which we are acutely aware is that there are a very large number of individual organisations: both those which come under the umbrella organisations and other voluntary organisations. There is no conceivable way in which each and every one of them can be represented on the committees if we are to have committees that are manageable.
Therefore we contemplate that regarding those organisations that are answerable through the umbrella organisations, it will be necessary for those umbrella organisations, assisted in any way that seems practicable by the NRA, to have arrangements for consultations with their constituent bodies. One must remember that the individuals who will actually sit on the regional rivers advisory committees will be representing a broad spectrum of interests and not just the interests of the particular body of which they are a member. That is a point which is not always borne in mind by the representatives of such organisations.
Concerning the wider circle of voluntary bodies, we are acutely aware of the need for the regional rivers advisory committees themselves to think of ways of making sure that they know the views of that wider constitutency. I hope the House will think that it is proper that in each region according to the circumstances and the situation there (they differ enormously) it would be right for those committees to think of the practical ways of getting the flow of information rather than to seek to impose any rigid structure in the Bill.
800
I give the assurance that my committee is very much aware of that particular problem. It has considered it at the meetings of the advisory committee and will consider it again when we have the representations to hand. We shall be most anxious to arrive at working arrangements that make people feel that the regional rivers advisory committees are indeed listening to the points that they have to make, and that they are also making sure that they are fully and adequately considered by the NRA in its decision-making process.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply; and I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for his answer. I hope that it will not be taken amiss on the Government Front Bench if I say that I am more reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had to say than what was said by the Minister. However, that is a common complaint these days.
I believe the fear that is perhaps underlying this amendment is the experience that organisations have had—not of course with these new bodies which are yet to be tried and tested regarding composition and effectiveness—but concerning existing bodies; namely, consumer protection machinery and what remains of the nationalised industries besides the transport users' consultative committees and the like. I fear that the experience over the years of organisations that are "consulted" has been that a great deal of time and trouble have been taken in order to submit particulars of very worthy people who have a contribution to make, according to the proposing organisations, and then nothing more is heard of these nominations. Yet when the matter is raised face to face, as it were, with Ministers of all political complexions, we are often confronted with the assurance that they are desperately short of names and unable to get suitable people. Therefore, there is a credibility gap between the fact that names are submitted and the assertion that when it comes to appointments there is a shortage.
Judging by the spectrum of bodies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and by the Minister himself, there is certainly going to be no shortage of nominations regarding the RRACs. However, I should like to feel that the process of consultation will be thorough and that in point of fact those organisations that are submitting names will believe, and be seen to believe, that the names they are submitting are given serious consideration by the NRA. As a consequence, we shall then have in perpetuity, so to speak, broadly-based RRACs taking account of all the interests concerned besides committees that are not only broadly based but well composed and able to discharge the important functions which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has described to us. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, in calling the next amendment I point out to the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David.
The Earl The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("question") to end of line 14.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("and

(iii) include at least one person nominated by the Nature Conservancy Council, one by the Countryside Commission and at least three persons appointed after consultation with voluntary conservation, landscape and amenity bodies;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my Amendment No. 17 has gone, but I do not believe that that matters very much. The substantive one is Amendment No. 18. At Committee stage I moved Amendment No. 23 which appeared in the Official Report on 2nd May at col. 128. The aim of the amendment was to provide for statutory guidance to be made available to the National Rivers Authority on the appointment of members to the regional advisory committees. In responding, the Minister announced that the NRA had that day published draft guidelines concerning the membership of the regional rivers advisory committees, flood defence and fisheries committees. That resulted in the withdrawal of amendments promoted by both sides of the Chamber. These amendments were promoted by me on this side of the Committee and also by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on the other. We believed that they would strengthen and improve the Bill.
I shall restrict my immediate concerns to the regional rivers advisory committees, which are dealt with in Clause 2. The draft guidance that was published by the NRA on 2nd May provides some idea of the possible shape of membership of the RRACs. But it offers no assurance that conservation interests will be properly represented. In particular the NRA's guidance does not recognise the separate responsibilities and locus of the statutory versus the voluntary bodies. The Nature Conservancy Council (which are the Government's statutory advisers on nature conservation) consider that it is important for the new RRACs to include members from the statutory bodies—namely, the NCC and the Countryside Commission—besides the voluntary conservation bodies such as the RSPB, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and the CPRE.
The voluntary conservation movement has developed a strong working relationship with the water authorities on water resource management and wetlands conservation. The RSPB is represented by its professional staff on seven out of nine existing regional recreation and conservation committees and has found its representation on those committees to be invaluable. The RSPB has a wealth of expertise located in regional offices throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Its expertise and professionalism are reflected in its rivers and wildlife handbook. I am sure that most Members of the House will have seen and studied it and realised its great worth. It provides detailed advice to river
802
engineers on river management. Continued representation on the RRACs by interest groups such as the RSPB will help to ensure that good practical conservation advice is available to the NRA.
The angling interests will in future be represented by the new regional fisheries advisory committees established under Clause 140 and as such will leave more scope for conservation and other amenity interests to be represented on the RRACs. By providing for five RRAC members from statutory and voluntary bodies, up to 15 places will remain to represent the interests of local authorities, farmers and landowners, industry and other interest groups. The Minister has tried on several occasions to assure Parliament that voluntary bodies are likely to be included on the RRACs but those are false assurances. Is he aware of the draft NRA scheme published by the Yorkshire Water Authority which excluded all voluntary conservation and recreation groups from its proposed RRAC?
By adopting the amendment on the Marshalled List, which does not mention any specific voluntary bodies, adequate representation of statutory and voluntary conservation and amenity interests will not be left to chance. The NCC, the RSNC and the CPRE all support the amendment and all would wish to carry on the excellent relationships that have been created.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I am delighted by his assurances. But they are only assurances. We want something on the face of the Bill. I totally understand his view that representatives should not speak for their organisations but should be present as individuals. That I totally appreciate and approve of. However, they still wish that the voluntary bodies should be represented. I have of course read the document and the annexes too, and I think I have understood them. But we want something on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, when I speak in support of the amendment I do not rise as the late Willie Ross and I apologise to his descendants for any offence that may have been taken. It was supposed to be me who supported the noble Baroness, Lady David. She has put the case very well indeed.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is present because I do not quite understand—the point has already been made by the noble Baroness—just exactly how the membership of the RRACs is to be decided. Perhaps I may throw the question to him over the Minister's head. Will he ask the water authorities to nominate who those people should be, or will the decision come from him and the NRA? That is the point which the noble Baroness made about Yorkshire.
I would draw the attention of the Minister to the leading article in today's Guardian. We in this House must take note of the strength of the voluntary bodies about which we are talking. There has been a phenomenal growth in the membership of green groups. The top 15 organisations involved with environmental problems already have a higher income than the trade union movement and on

803
present trends will have overtaken its membership by the 1990s. We are talking about bodies with enormous support in this country.
I am honoured to be chairman of Wildlife Link. I did not seek the position but I was delighted to be asked to do it. It provides an umbrella movement for more than 40 environmental organisations, including the CPRE, the National Trust and so on. I take on board the point that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, makes. One cannot have every individual voluntary body demanding to be represented on these various committees. However, I have managed to take delegations representing that whole cross-section to see Ministers. They have been able to put forward views which have been accepted right across the board.
This amendment should not be ignored by the Government but should be taken on board. The voluntary bodies can come together and nominate worthwhile people who can contribute the kind of information which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, would want. I hope that a provision of this kind will be written into the Bill. Surely the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission are the recognised bodies. Surely a way can be devised whereby the three other nominations can be arrived at without any real problem. They have already contributed a great deal of knowledge to the existing bodies.
I come back to the fact that these organisations have enormous support in the country. The RSPB, the CPRE and the World Wildlife Fund have huge memberships and great support. It is important that this point is acknowledged. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said—he does intend to have these people—but we really want slightly more than that. That is why I support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, by all means specify who should be on the committee but I do not think that that should be in primary legislation. It should be remembered that primary legislation will be needed to make any alterations. I am all for such a provision in guidelines or recommendations because those are much easier to change but I am against specifying the bodies, as is proposed in Amendment No. 18. One would restrict a wide choice. Other bodies will appear and other circumstances will arise. The National Rivers Authority will have all these thoughts very much in mind.
If the amendment is accepted we will have laid down in this one subsection that there shall be these five people on the committee. Therefore one could end up with committees which are too big. I am most concerned about the matter.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I am also most concerned about the amendment. I think in particular the wording is a little difficult. It includes the words,
"at least one person nominated by the Nature Conservancy Council".
Is it intended to nominate one person only for one committee, or will a broad band be put forward from which the authority would be allowed to select? It seems to me that the wording is a little faulty in that
804
respect. Like the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I believe that these committees must be totally flexible. I have a suspicion that if we do not have nominated representatives on each committee, the lobbying by the Nature Conservancy Council could be much stronger because it could convince a wide range of people. But if there is a nominated member that person is already seen to be parti pris and therefore his force on the authority is much weaker.
I wholeheartedly support the principles behind the amendment. All this information needs to be considered actively by the National Rivers Authority. However, I do not think that this is the right way to do it.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I hesitate to speak because I feel I am treading a tightrope. I have to avoid answering points which should properly be answered by Ministers and commenting upon an advisory document issued by the committee which I chair. I hope that I do not fall off that tightrope.
I agree very much with my noble friend who spoke about the problem of writing constraints into primary legislation and the rigidities that that creates. I agree also that the clause as drafted would commit us to having five people in every case on each committee around the country whatever the circumstances may be.
However, there is another point which has not yet emerged. That is the suggestion implicit in the amendment that the persons nominated—a list of names may well be put forward from which individuals will be selected—by the Nature Conservancy Council and by the Countryside Commission will be different and separate from those of the voluntary bodies. It may be that in some cases the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission will nominate members who directly represent those organisations. However, I believe that it is far more likely that the generality will be that they will be nominating the representatives of voluntary bodies themselves. For example, the Nature Conservancy Council may well put forward a name from the RSPB.
That example illustrates that we are not talking about separate bodies. But, having said that, we are equally clear that once the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission have put forward names many voluntary bodies will rush forward and say, "We have not been chosen; we want to be there by right and individually." Indeed, I have already received representations from very important bodies implying that they should be there whatever the other nominations may be.
I believe it highly likely that in many cases an organisation such as the RSPB would be represented and would make a most valuable contribution. However, I think that my committee would be most concerned if rigidities written into the Bill meant that it was not able to respond to the list put forward. The committee must have a certain amount of flexibility in making the choice, bearing in mind the need to retain manageable bodies. To have very large and cumbersome representative bodies runs the risk of failing to represent effectively the interests of any organisation.

805
The committee has issued a consultative document and we are listening to representations. Of course members of the committee will take careful account of what is said in this House. I believe there would be concern—and it is right to say this—among members of my committee if they found themselves confronted with a clause which, whatever the good intentions behind it, created a rigidity of structure which later we might regret.
At the end of the day the NRA will be a public body answerable to this House and producing a report which I have no doubt will come under most critical examination by the public. If it failed to respond to genuine representations it would be a very foolish body.
There is a large number of such organisations. A certain discretion must be left to the NRA to get a broadly representative group of people, suitable for the region in which it is operating, so that those matters can be properly looked at. There might be difficulties in following what I hope is a sensible course if a rigid structure were imposed on the committee by legislation.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer the question that I put to him. I do not understand why Yorkshire Water can recommend people for membership of an RRAC, which presumably then goes to the NRA for approval, which excludes voluntary bodies. Do he and his committee make the final decision—that would be reassuring—as to the membership of such bodies and not the water plcs?
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, let me deal instantly with that point which has created a misunderstanding. The water plcs have nothing to do with the matter at all. At the moment, the shadow NRA units are still employed by the water authorities, and until the Bill passes they will remain in that position. All that has happened here is that many months ago, early in the proceedings, one individual in the Yorkshire authority produced by way of local discussion a paper suggesting the kind of structure that he thought might be appropriate. It was circulated in Yorkshire long before the issue had been considered by the advisory committee. It now happens that that individual, I am glad to say, is a member of the advisory committee and will be playing a part in its deliberations. That was very much an initial shot by someone involved in the industry who was having local consultation on this difficult issue. It does not represent the advisory committee's final views. It considered the matter only a short time ago in time to produce the document that your Lordships have seen.
We now effectively have a consultation agreement. The NRAAC will be considering the representations made. The final choice will be made by the NRA when it formally comes into being, having consulted all those organisations, including the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will be aware that whatever the reason for that draft it caused anxiety among conservation bodies. The RSPB in particular was concerned by the exclusion. It feels that such exclusions, if carried through all the RRACs, would lead to a wide gap in the expertise available to them. The conservation bodies also feel that statutory provision for conservation experts should be made or the RRACs may not obtain the level of expertise which they have so far enjoyed under their present title.
I would make just one further point, because all the arguments have been made. It is one made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The assurances which have been given by the noble Lord today are invaluable. The bodies which are now being formed consist largely of personnel who have experience of dealing with voluntary conservation organisations The personnel may therefore look kindly on arrangements which include voluntary organisations.
We are anxious that when the personnel of the NRA and the RRACs change in the future, as they must, there is a statutory requirement that they should carry on dealing with voluntary conservation organisations. I am sorry if it is felt that that requirement is restrictive. I cannot see why it should be a worry. We are not at the moment laying down any numbers, nor is there any limit on the size of the committee. I cannot see why we cannot make this provision secure for the future. I accept the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I am sure that he and the present NRA will be kindly disposed towards the people who have worked with them so far, but I feel that a statutory requirement is needed.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I too support the amendment, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. I underline how valuable his assurances have been. Nevertheless, the fact that the Yorkshire Water Authority could put round a paper showing the kind of bodies that should be represented on the RRACs, which left out the voluntary conservation bodies, is an indication of how insecure their position could be.
The amendment which we are consi dering has two features. One is to give direct representation to two of the statutory bodies, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission; and the other is to give three representatives to the voluntary conservation and other amenity bodies. It does not tie the National Rivers Authority down to any particular organisation; it just specifies three representatives from those bodies. They would be selected and appointed by the NRA.
So I do not think that the amendment is in any way restrictive. It gives the right of representation to two statutory bodies and then the choice remains with the National Rivers Authority. Like other noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, I think it would be reassuring in the light of the very great concern that has been created by the action of the Yorkshire Water Authority.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have already discussed at some length this evening the composition of the NRA regional advisory committees in the context of Amendment No. 15. I know that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and his colleagues on the NRA Advisory Committee are fully persuaded of the important role not only of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission but also of the voluntary environmental bodies in relation to the NRA regional committees. This is a point on which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has elaborated. It is very helpful and useful for all sides of your Lordships' House to have my noble friend's advice and the information and assurance on various aspects of the NRA. The NRA Advisory Committee's consultative document makes it quite clear that some members of the regional rivers advisory committees will be selected from conservation and landscape interests, including statutory and voluntary bodies.
As we have said previously, and as has been outlined again tonight, not only by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell but also by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and by my noble friend Lord Balfour, it would be inappropriate to impose on the NRA a statutory requirement to include specified numbers of particular interest groups on its committees. I must repeat that this is a matter which should rightly be left to the NRA to decide—a point which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has so rightly outlined. The NRA Advisory Committee has already given a clear indication that it will take appropriate steps to ensure that environmental interests are appropriately represented.
As regards the situation in Yorkshire, perhaps I may lay that particular concern to rest. The Yorkshire Water Authority scheme was an early draft; it had no status. Noble Lords can be assured that the NRA will construct its committees in line with the consultative document, following consideration of the views that are put forward. It is on the basis of these arguments that I hope I can persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very glad of the support which I have received from a number of Peers, if not from all of them—particularly the voice, not from the grave, but from the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. The NRA's own document says that members of the regional advisory councils will be selected from among the following areas of interest, one of which is conservation and landscape interests, including statutory and voluntary bodies. Our amendment simply spells out that provision a little more clearly. It does not change it.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said that the committee might become enormously large. However, we are very happy for it to contain 15 to 20 members, as has been suggested. If only five are to come from this area, 15 will come from other places if the committee is to have 20 members. I do not think a committee of 20 is an unmanageable number.
I quite understand that it would be nicer for the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to choose exactly who
808
he wants. However, these very important voluntary bodies feel very strongly about representation. I know the Yorkshire example has been cried down, and that it has been said that a mistake occurred there. However, that is typical of the kind of thing that can happen. If some provision is not written on the face of the Bill, that kind of thing could occur when we do not have such a well-meaning person with good intentions in charge of the NRA as I have absolutely no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will be.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She says that we are only dealing with five people; but what would happen if, as it seems to me is quite likely, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission nominated two, three or four extremely suitable candidates, including those from voluntary bodies, all of whom one was minded to accept? As I understand this clause, one would either have to reject some of them, or accept them and then accept at least three more from the voluntary bodies too. I think the noble Baroness is overlooking the fact that the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission will themselves be nominating the representatives of voluntary bodies.
Baroness David: My Lords, that is not how I read my amendment. There is obviously a difference of opinion about that. The amendment states that each committee will:
"include at least one person nominated by the Nature Conservancy Council, one by the Countryside Commission and at least three persons appointed after consultation with voluntary conservation, landscape and amenity bodies".
The Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission are statutory bodies. I do not feel that I have obtained a very satisfactory response, and in the light of that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
9.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 55.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McNair, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kagan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lawrence, L.

809

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Balfour, E.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blyth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Brain, L.

Mersey, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Norrie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnock, L.

Radnor, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rochdale, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Crathorne, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Dundee, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trafford, L.

Forester, L.

Trumpington, B.

Fortescue, E.

Wise, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Wynford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Harvington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
("(2A) Any meeting of an advisory committee established under this section shall be open to the public, except to the extent that the Chairman of the committee specifies that any item shall be discussed as confidential business.
(2B) Any person attending a meeting of a committee shall be entitled to a copy of any document made available to the committee in relation to business other than confidential business, and any such document shall be made available wherever reasonable free of charge.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I wish to move Amendment No. 19 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 134 and 137 with which Amendment No. 19 is grouped.
Amendment No. 19 follows on from a Government concession announced in the context of an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. That amendment sought to open up the NRA to the access to information requirements set out in the Local Government Act of 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. The Government resisted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. They pointed to the NRA's duty to produce an annual report and other duties including that to maintain public registers of certain matters such as water quality objectives and water samples.
The Minister announced, however, that the NRA Advisory Committee had recommended that the three regional committees in each NRA area—that is to say, the regional rivers advisory committees and the flood defence and fisheries advisory
810
committees—should be open to the public except in respect of confidential items.
This amendment seeks to place that provision—namely, that those three committees should be open to the public—on the face of the Bill in respect of the regional rivers committee, which is covered by Amendment No. 19, and the other two committees, which are covered by Amendments Nos. 134 and 137. The amendment enables the chairman of any committee to specify that an item to be discussed is confidential business. It entitles any person attending such meetings to a copy of a document made available to the committee, again, other than a confidential document. It also provides that such documents which are made available should, wherever reasonable, be given free of charge to people attending those meetings. In other words, all but expensively produced or very substantial documents should be made available free.
The amendment suggests that the right of public access is sufficiently important to be included in the Bill rather than, welcome though it is, being the subject of advice from the NRA Advisory Committee and therefore of discretion in the future. We feel that such a provision in the Bill is justified. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 19 is to provide that any meeting of a regional rivers advisory committee should be open to the public except for any business identified by the chairman as confidential. The amendment also provides that any person attending a meeting of a committee shall be entitled to receive a copy of any document made available to the committee in relation to any business other than confidential business and that any such document shall be made available, wherever reasonable, free of charge.
Amendment No. 134 applies the provisions of Amendment No. 19 to the NRA's regional flood defence committees. Amendment No. 137 applies the same provisions to the NRA's regional fisheries advisory committees.
In its consultative document on the NRA's regional committee structure, the NRA Advisory Committee has made it clear that meetings of the NRA's three regional committees would be open to the press and the public except for the discussion of confidential items. That is as it should be and neither I nor the NRA Advisory Committee would have any difficulty in accepting that part of the amendment. I am therefore happy to arrange for a government amendment to that effect to be tabled at Third Reading.
I also have sympathy with the intention behind the second part of the amendment. But to impose a statutory requirement on the NRA to produce sufficient copies of any document prepared for any committee item excluding confidential business for all members of the public who chose to attend these meetings could be unreasonable. How will the NRA know how many members of the public are going to attend?

811
I accept, however, that at least one copy of all documents discussed at those meetings—excluding confidential matters—should be available for the inspection of members of the public who choose to attend such meetings. I am therefore prepared to consider introducing a government amendment at Third Reading to ensure that at least one copy of relevant documents is available for the public at the meetings. I recognise that, in most cases, the NRA will be able—and will want—to go further than such an amendment would require. I am sure that it will take note of noble Lords' common concern on this matter, and do as much as possible to make papers relating to the deliberations of such committees as widely available as possible. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will feel able to withdraw his three amendments.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for the response he has made to this amendment, which I accept in respect of the first part and also the second part of Amendment No. 19. I take it that similar assurances will be forthcoming when we get to the other two amendments which I spoke to at the same time. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
("(4A) No appointment shall be made by the Authority under this section unless the Authority has carried out consultation with the local authority associations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment comes back to an issue which was not raised at the Committee stage because the NRA Advisory Committee document had only just been produced and we had not had adequate time to study it. Therefore it did not seem appropriate to discuss it at the Committee stage and we left it over until Report stage. We have had a lot of discussion about consultation this evening. I do not want to raise all of the issues which have been raised so ably by my noble friends and others, but it appears to us that there is one omission from the provision which has been made. Perhaps it is something on which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, may feel able to enlighten us.
Clearly local authorities have a significant role in the work of the regional rivers advisory committees. After all, they retain very substantial related functions. Equally clearly it would be very complicated if the regional rivers advisory committees and the NRA were required to consult a wide range of individual local authorities in their areas when the boundaries of the advisory committees may well not coincide with the boundaries of the local authorities. In these amendments we are proposing that the onerous task of dealing with individual local authorities be undertaken by the local authority associations which
812
perform the task in relation to many other outside appointments, and that therefore the local authority associations should be consulted on such appointments.
It may seem draconian to say that no such appointments shall be made unless the authority has carried out consultation with the local authority associations. I can assure the Government and the House that local authority associations are not going to have any interest in intervening in any appointments other than those with which local authorities are concerned. They are certainly not going to intervene in appointments made in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council or any other voluntary or statutory bodies. However, since there is no specific provision for local authority representation the only way to secure a sensible reference to local authorities is to do it in this way through the local authority associations and have it apply, in theory at any rate, to all appointments.
It may well be that the wording of the amendment could be improved, but I hope that the principle behind it will find favour with the Government and with the House. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to require the NRA before appointing members of the regional rivers advisory committees to consult with the local authority associations.
At the regional level, local authorities have a very important role on the NRA's regional flood defence committee where they retain majority membership. This is where their primary interest lies. However, local government is only one of the many interests with a legitimate claim to be represented on the regional rivers advisory committees.
Nevertheless, in its consultative document, the NRA advisory committee makes it clear that local government will be represented on the regional rivers advisory committees and that nominations will be invited from interested organisations. But we do not consider it appropriate to build in any formal requirement for consultation before appointments are made or specifically to single out local authority associations as organisations to be consulted. The arrangements for these committees in the various regions should rightly be a matter for the NRA itself to decide. That is why we urge resistance to this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are making life more difficult rather than less difficult for the NRA and its regional advisory committees. What is proposed is a helpful way of shortcutting what might otherwise be complicated negotiations and consultation with different local authorities in the area of a regional advisory committee and with different levels of local authority; for example, between county and district councils. It would have been easier if the Government had at least accepted the principle of dealing through local authority associations.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, would the noble Lord find it helpful if I were to say that he has made an interesting and helpful suggestion on nominations? These are obvious bodies who can put forward nominations without having the restrictive clause that he has proposed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find that comment helpful. I am grateful to the noble Lord for it. It is one suggestion that I shall discuss with
814
the local authority associations which are evidently supporting this amendment.
On the basis of considering how we might proceed by dealing with nominations rather than by consultation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Transfer of the water authorities' functions etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 10, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State shall, by order made before the transfer date, nominate a company in relation to each water authority as that authority's successor company; but a company shall not be so nominated unless it is a limited company and, at the time when the order is made, is wholly owned by the Crown.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend. In moving Amendment No. 22, we have been looking at the relationship of Clause 4, which provides for the transfer of water authority functions to successor companies, and Clause 11, which deals with the appointment of undertakers.
Clause 11(4) imposes a duty upon the Secretary of State to appoint on the transfer date the statutory water companies as water undertakers and the successor companies as water undertakers and sewerage undertakers so that for every area of England and Wales an undertaker will be appointed.
We have concluded that given the duties in Clause 11, the existing provisions in Clause 4(2) which relates to the appointment of the transfer date are overelaborate and unnecessary. This amendment simplifies the provisions for making the transfer date and improves the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am puzzled by the numbering. If subsections (2) and (3) are to be taken out, surely the numbering of the new subsection should be (2) rather than (3) otherwise there will be a gap between subsections (1) and (3).
Apart from that, I find the content of the amendment a little strange. I have no objection to the process of nomination being simplified. However, subsection (2) contains a number of safeguards that the transfer date shall not be determined until Section 1—the establishment of the NRA—has come into force; that the Director General of Water Services has been appointed; that transfer schemes under Schedule 2 have been made; and that arrangements have been made for appointments of water plcs' successors to come into force in all areas.
The Bill as at present constituted provides that the Secretary of State can nominate the successor companies. It is satisfactory to have the proviso that it should be a limited company and wholly owned by the Crown. But what happens about the other provisos contained in the new subsection (2) regarding the establishment of the NRA and the role of the director general, for example? I wonder whether the Minister can help me, first, on my numbering point and, secondly, on the substantive points.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first on the numbering point, I confess that there is an error in numbering and it should be subsection (2). As regards further elaboration, the proposed amendment is one of practicality and will allow the Secretary of State to make an order for the transfer
816
date without the need to be satisfied at that stage that appointments will be made for every area in England and Wales at transfer date. That means that any potential delay, perhaps for example in agreeing conditions of appointment, in making an order to nominate a company will not also delay the timing of making the order for the transfer date, but it is only to ensure that the timing is unaffected.
Clause 11 still imposes on the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that companies will be holding appointments as water and sewerage undertakers for the whole of England and Wales at all times from the date of transfer.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Schemes providing for the Initial Transfers]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 199, line 35, leave out ("on coming into force on the transfer date, have effect so as, in accordance with its other") and insert ("come into force on the transfer date.
(1A) Where such a scheme comes into force in relation to the property, rights and liabilities of a water authority, this paragraph shall have effect so as, in accordance with the scheme's").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I speak to Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 104 and 105 at the same time.
The amendments are of a technical nature connected with the schemes of transfer under Schedule 2 prepared by the water authorities for the division of their property, rights and liabilities between the NRA and the successor companies and which will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
I am happy to go into whatever detail your Lordships may require; but, in summary, without the amendments it would be impossible to achieve a transfer of all the property rights and liabilities from the water authorities to the NRA and the successor companies. It would be impossible to negotiate the transfer of the thousands of contracts, agreements, leases and conveyances. That is why statutory transfers, which is what the Bill provides, normally have the effect of overriding third-party rights, but only for the occasion of a statutory transfer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.24:
Page 199, line 38, leave out ("such of).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 to 28. Your Lordships will recall that on the first day in Committee we had a substantial debate on an amendment, the intention of which was to transfer to the NRA all the freehold land, which would otherwise be transferred to the water and sewerage undertakings and to enable the NRA to transfer operational land and any land required for future operational requirements to the water companies. The Committee rejected that suggestion, partly because the Government objected to the whole

817
idea of the NRA holding land—I recognised that fact—but also partly because there were objections concerning the fact that it was not very complimentary to the water and sewerage undertakings to think that they could not have responsibility for holding freehold land, particularly the land required for operational purposes.
We have taken those observations into account in preparing this new and much more limited set of amendments. They relate to Schedule 2 on page 199 referring to the initial transfers, and to that part of Schedule 2 which refers to the transfers scheme. To simplify them, they provide that the land which is required for operational purposes shall be transferred to water and sewerage undertakings. Therefore, they will have the freehold of the land that they need for operational purposes. The land which is not required for operational purposes shall instead be transferred to the National Rivers Authority.
Amendment No. 28 adds an additional subsection to provide that if there is any future requirement for operational purposes for the land which has been transferred to the NRA under previous amendments, the transfer scheme set up under the schedule shall make provision for the subsequent reallocation when necessary.
I hope that that brief explanation is clear. I could go through the wording of Schedule 2(2) if necessary but I believe that the intention behind it is clear. We are not now proposing the transfer of the freehold of all land. However, we are still concerned about the issue to which we paid the greatest attention in Committee. It is the problem of plcs being given land on transfer which they do not need and then being able to sell off that surplus land for other purposes. They will be able to make profits which are not related to their activities but to their ability to dispose of surplus land.
I appreciate that to some extent I am anticipating, as I am bound to, a debate which will take place on Thursday afternoon. The Government have put forward complicated proposals for the disposal of surplus land and I do not wish to anticipate the detail of that argument. A substantial number of amendments have been and will be tabled and the debate will be complicated. However, as regards these amendments I should like first to reiterate the view which we strongly hold before talking about the issue of the division of the spoils, which is the concern over the government amendments. It is that surplus, non-operational land ought not to be transferred to profit-making commercial undertakings; it ought to remain in the public sector.
Over many years that land has been built up for historical reasons. At one time it may have had operational significance. Some has never had operational significance in the sense that it was bought as part of a package with land which was required for operational purposes. In many cases the land is of significant value, particularly the Thames Water Authority land in London which was required for operational purposes but is no longer because of the establishment of the ring main system in London. It may or may not have conservation value but
818
that is beside the point in this respect. However, it belongs to the public and has been paid for by the public. It is not part of the water industry which is to be privatised. It is only by accident under the ownership of the regional water authorities which took over the land from local authorities under the 1973 Act. It ought not now to be privatised; it ought to be part of the public sector, as it has always been.
I appreciate that on this matter there are major differences of principle between us and the Government. We are not under any illusion about that. However, once the objection about the freehold of operational land, which was raised quite strongly against our previous amendments, has been removed by the redrafting of the amendments, it will be interesting to see what effective response the Government can make to the issue of principle raised by these amendments which, in my judgment, is not dealt with by the amendments tabled by the Government to Clause 7 and to later parts of the Bill for debate on Thursday.
I believe that it is important that we should establish our position here as clearly as we can without the irrelevance of the freehold of operational land. Non-operational land which is not part of the water industry should not be privatised with the water industry but should remain in public ownership. That is the purpose of these amendments. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Schedule 2 describes the arrangements for dividing the water authorities' property, rights and liabilities between the National Rivers Authority and the successor companies. As it is drafted, a scheme of transfer will detail the property, rights and liabilities to be transferred to the National Rivers Authority; the remainder, without the need for detailed listing, will be transferred automatically to the successor companies. The effect of these amendments is to reverse this arrangement with only as much of the property, rights and liabilities being transferred to the successor companies as is necessary for the fulfilment of its functions.
Apart from causing severe difficulties of a practical nature, there are two reasons why I consider that this proposal should not be accepted. First, it is contrary to the intended operation of the National Rivers Authority. Water authorities are substantial landowners. The NRA is planned as a slim, efficient organisation with only sufficient assets to carry out its functions. Some of the water authorities' land is likely to be surplus to the operational requirements of the core water and sewerage business. Some of it may become operationally redundant in the short to medium term as a result of new investment or scope for rationalisation. But much of the land is likely to be needed for operational purposes indefinitely and must rightly remain with the water undertakers. The NRA will not have the spare capacity available to manage large areas of land which it does not need for its own purposes.
The National Rivers Authority would therefore find the additional land an encumbrance whereas its

819
transfer to the successor companies will result in considerable benefits to the customers. My noble friend Lord Hesketh will be explaining that in more detail when we come to Amendment No. 48 together with our proposals for arrangements in which customers will share the proceeds of land disposal. That is the second reason for my resisting this amendment. The proper treatment of land which is surplus to the functions of the water companies must be to provide sufficient incentives for them to dispose of land rather than arranging for either the NRA or the utility undertaker to sit on it when it could be put to more constructive use by another owner.
The government amendments will combine a means to provide long-term protection for conservation and public amenity if the water companies sell land in national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, with an incentive to dispose of land which can be sold profitably, and arrangements must be made to ensure that the customer benefits from a share of the proceeds. Ironically, the opportunity for those financial benefits to customers would be missed if the present amendments were accepted.
Perhaps I may just spend a moment looking forward to Amendment No. 48 and related government amendments. These have been brought forward as a result of listening to what your Lordships said in Committee and the concerns raised then as well as other concerns raised in another place and outside the House. They are a comprehensive list of amendments and I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that they have been widely welcomed by many of those interested, particularly the voluntary bodies and others who have written to me to say how pleased they are that we have come forward with the amendments. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is concerned and has put down numerous amendments to keep your Lordships employed on Thursday afternoon and obviously we look forward to discussing those in detail.
I take this opportunity of apologising to the House as I shall not be here on Thursday. I shall be in Luxembourg convincing other environment Ministers that we in this country are doing a much better job for water, sewerage and bathing beaches than they are and that it is time they caught up with our good work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is only because of our admiration for the persuasiveness of the Minister and particularly of the difficult task he is setting himself in attempting to put himself above the other environment Ministers in Europe that we excuse him for what is, after all, a breach of the proprieties of this House in anticipating a future amendment because he cannot be here to move it himself. It is not the right way to go about these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, must feel that some of his thunder is being taken from him. We do not mind, and I am sure he does not mind. He had better not, because he is a junior Minister!
820
The Minister has attempted to do what his honourable friend the Minister for water is undoubtedly attempting to do at the same time, and no doubt will be doing again on Thursday. He has sought to make a propaganda coup out of the very imprecise and modest amendments to be brought forward by the Government. He chose to run a trailer campaign for those amendments rather than answer the substantive points behind my amendments. I think that is a pity.
On the whole it would have been better if he had taken the amendments seriously and recognised that they deal with some of the problems that were unnecessarily aroused by the amendments we put forward in Committee. It would have been better to deal with what is, after all, a fundamental defect of this Bill—the fact that in the course of privatising the water and sewerage industries we are also transferring to private ownership, with inadequate compensation for the taxpayer and customers, a great deal of land which is not necessary for the plcs' purposes. That is what is happening and it ought not to be happening. I suggest that it is one of the reasons why water privatisation is such an unpopular measure in the country and why the Government are taking so much political flak as a result of the water privatisation measure.
It is interesting that the Minister speaks about operational difficulties. He does not say that a large part of the complex regulatory mechanism which is necessary as part of this Bill is necessary because the Bill transfers this non-operational land to the private companies. That is one of the reasons why we have such an elaborate regulatory mechanism in the Bill and why further regulatory mechanisms are being proposed in the Government's amendments which are to be debated on Thursday. I suggest that any operational difficulties that may arise in listing the non-operational land to be retained for the NRA, rather than the other way round, are vastly outweighed by the unnecessary complexity of the regulatory system. I do not mean that the regulatory system is too complex for what it does; I mean that what it does is too complex for any regulatory system adequately to control.
I note that all of this is done without any figures being given to the public about what proportion of the land being transferred from the water authorities is operational, what proportion of the land is being transferred to the plcs and what proportion is being retained for the NRA; and whether indeed there are any specific examples of land which is being retained for the NRA. On all these matters the Government have been silent despite repeated requests during the months that the Bill has been under discussion.
It is clear that the Government are not going to move on this matter, and that our pleas to have water privatisation restricted to water and not include the sell-off of land are not going to be listened to by the Government. At this time of night there is no point in pursuing the matter to a Division. The answers that the Minister has given and that the Government have given consistently throughout the passage of this Bill will be noted. They provide further fuel for the campaign that has already started and which

821
will reach fruition with the election of a Labour Government to restore the water industry to public control. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30:
Page 200, line 8, leave out ("by means of) and insert ("in accordance with").
Page 200, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the transfers authorised by paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (3) above include transfers which, by virtue of that paragraph, are to take effect as if there were no such contravention, liability or interference with any interest or right as there would be, in the case of a transfer or assignment otherwise than by virtue of this Schedule, by reason of any provision having effect (whether under any enactment or agreement or otherwise) in relation to the terms on which a water authority is entitled or subject to the property, right or liability in question.
( ) Where apart from this sub-paragraph any person would have power, in consequence of anything done or likely to be done by or under this Act, to terminate or modify an interest or right which is vested in a water authority at the passing of this Act, then—

(a) for the purposes of the transfer of the interest or right in accordance with a scheme under this Schedule, that power shall not be exercisable in relation to that interest or right at any time before its transfer in accordance with such a scheme; and

(b) without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this paragraph or to paragraph 3(2)(a) below, that power shall be exercisable in relation to the interest or right after its transfer only in so far as the scheme provides for it to be transferred subject to the power.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Director General of Water Services]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 202, line 37, at end insert—("Pension benefits
1A. A scheme under this Schedule shall provide that where persons who immediately before transfer were contributing to the Water Authorities' Superannuation Fund and were employed by a successor body, it shall be the duty of that body to provide pension benefits that are no less favourable (including any provision for increasing pensions already in payment) than those which would have been enjoyed under comparable arrangements with the Local Government Superannuation Scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend. It deals with a very important matter especially regarding the employees in the existing undertakings. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to help me to short-circuit the matter. I wrote to the Minister concerning this question following the Committee stage of the Bill. I was hoping that he would give me some indication of a response to the requests for clarification of this issue. The Minister will recall that in the Official Report of 4th May, at cols. 302 to 304, he went a considerable way to satisfying the points that I raised. I know that the Minister is not only very well briefed but also very
822
knowledgeable on these matters. He will recall that I raised these matters at the suggestion of the trade union directly involved; namely, NALGO.
The matter was left at the end of the previous discussion in terms of the mirror arrangements that were to be set up. There were to be two employees who were trustees. I am sure that the Minister will be helpful to me; but perhaps I need to make a little more of the case. The Minister's advisers will undoubtedly have seen that the amendment is substantially but not quite the same regarding the wording. The amendment that I moved at an earlier stage was that,
"where persons who immediately before transfer were contributing to the Water Authorities' Superannuation Fund and employed by a successor body, it shall be the duly of that body…"
This amendment states:
"A scheme under this Schedule shall provide that where persons who immediately before transfer were contributing to the Water Authorities' Superannuation Fund and were employed by a successor body,"
and so on.
What the employees in the industry want is that there shall be no detriment to their existing pension conditions and that the conditions that they enjoy at the moment shall go with them to the new employers. In addition, not only will there be no detriment, but there will also be protection. On the previous occasion I alluded to what I thought had been the way in which the employees in previous state undertakings had been let down on the transfer of ownership. I refer to the dockyards and to the small arms factory. I dealt with these matters in the House for the Labour Party and there was dissatisfaction with the undertakings.
Can the Minister tell me whether since the Committee stage there has been any reflection on the point? If my letter has not reached the Minister, that may be the reason why there has been no reply. Even so, can the Minister tell me whether the amendment that I move is any more acceptable than the previous one? The employees are asking that there should be written on the face of the Bill the kind of undertakings that the Minister gave me verbally in replying to the amendment on the previous occasion. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is very important that there should be continuity of pension rights between those who have been contributing to the water authorities' superannuation fund and the people who will take over responsibility as employers in the future. I do not know whether the amendment is technically the right way of achieving that. All I say is that it is an object which must be achieved. On the face of it this looks a rather sensible way of achieving it, but I do not know. In any event I hope that my noble friend will be able to give either a sympathetic response or an undertaking.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I found it difficult to understand why this amendment had been tabled because is is similar to one that we discussed in Committee. However, that has been cleared up by the careful explanation of the noble

823
Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in moving the amendment. I have to tell the noble Lord that I have not received his letter: for that reason he has not had a reply. However, it may help me to settle his concerns.
We have repeatedly given assurances that the trust deed, the form of protection customary in the private sector, for the mirror image scheme, will contain adequate safeguards. However, now that all the interim trust deeds and announcements to staff concerning the mirror image scheme have been sent to the department for consideration, I can provide further assurance which I hope will be satisfactory. All the announcements to staff demonstrate the employers' commitment by including specific mention of the two provisions which I described last time this amendment was debated. These are, first, that the trustees of the mirror image scheme shall include at least two representatives of members; and, secondly, that while there remain potential beneficiaries of the mirror image scheme it shall not be wound up or its benefits altered if any trustee objects. Furthermore, these provisions have now been included in the interim trust deeds for nine out of 10 authorities. The tenth will be submitting its revised draft shortly. It will contain these safeguards. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord's concerns.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for having caused a slight hiatus. I shall check my correspondence and have discussions with those outside the House who have sought to give me advice on the matter. We are talking about the trust deed and the protection that the trust deed will contain. Does the Minister know of any unease among the trade unions about the arrangements that have been made? I am expressing unease; I have put down amendments at the behest of trade union members. It is a proper thing to do. I am asking the Minister whether this unease has manifested itself in discussion with his officials.
I may be stating a case that need not be stated; alternatively the Minister may not be aware of the unease that I am expressing. He seemed to satisfy the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The trust deed will be part of the arrangements for each of the successor bodies. And that trust deed will contain the provision that on each of the boards of trustees there shall be two employees. If the interests of the current employees are alive and some beneficiaries are still waiting to be paid out, one trustee, never mind two, will have the right to veto any detrimental action to it. That seems eminently satisfactory. Is the Minister aware of any unease among the employees about the arrangements he has explained to the House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course I am aware of the unease which surrounds any transfer; that is quite a legitimate concern; indeed people are always concerned about such matters. I am sure that all of us have been concerned at one stage in our lives when we have moved from one pension scheme to another. However, nothing specific on the matter has been brought to my attention nor to the attention of my officials, but I can tell the noble Lord and my
824
noble friend Lord Renton that I had realised what an important matter this is. It is of course of great concern to those involved. If the noble Lord is not happy with the situation, I shall be happy to pursue the matter with him between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is more than a fair offer and I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I shall withdraw the amendment and it may be that I shall wish to return to the matter at a later stage. However, the offer made by the Minister, that he is willing either to listen to me or read what I may put in a letter in order to clarify any remaining doubt (which could be removed to obviate cluttering up the programme at the next stage), is one which I shall certainly take up. In the circumstances, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Customer service committees]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 34:
Page 5, line 20, leave out subsection (1).
Page 5, line 27, leave out from ("maintained") to end of line 29 and insert ("by him for the purpose, in relation to such companies as may be allocated to it, of carrying out—

(a) the functions assigned by this Act to such a committee; and

(b) such other functions as the committees established and maintained under this section may be required to carry out by the Director.

( ) The committees established and maintained under this section shall be known as customer service committees.").
Page 5, line 32, after ("section") insert ("to establish and maintain customer service committees and to allocate companies to those committees").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I should like to move Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 en bloc. The purpose of these amendments is further to clarify the fact that customer service committees will be established. As your Lordships will remember, we had considered that this clause already achieved the desired effect. However, as my noble friend Lady Strange—who sadly is not present this evening—so eloquently pointed out in Committee, it is important that the wording should be absolutely clear so that there can be no doubt in the public's mind that such committees will be established. The amendment therefore makes clear that it is a duty of the director general to establish and maintain customer service committees and to allocate companies to those committees. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, would have been happy to welcome these amendments had she been here this evening. I am a poor substitute; I cannot be anything like as poetic as she would be in support of the amendments. Nevertheless, I wish to welcome them wholeheartedly and to pay tribute not only to the noble Baroness who urged the case, but also to the consumer associations involved. I should especially like to pay tribute to the National

825
Consumer Council which put forward this point of view unsuccessfully throughout the progress of the Bill and which has only now achieved success, at almost the last stage.
The Government now recognise that the Bill was deficient in that it did not make sufficiently clear the obligation to set up customer service committees. That has now been put right, although it could have been put right much earlier. However, we must be grateful for the change of heart and for the fact that customer interests must be better protected as a result of the amendments proposed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although the Government have dealt with the matter in a way which is slightly different from that proposed by my noble friend Lady Strange in Committee, I think that the method which they have chosen achieves the purpose which she had in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, if the noble Baroness were here, she would be glad to support these amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 6, line 3, at end insert—
("(4A) In appointing persons to be members of a customer service committee the Director shall secure, so far as reasonably practicable, that one third of the members are persons representative of each of the following—

(a) domestic consumers;

(b) industrial, commercial and fanning interests; and

(c) local authorities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seeks to write into the Bill provisions regarding the categories from which the director shall draw representation to man the customer service committees which he is empowered to establish under this legislation.
The categories which we specify in the amendment—that is to say, domestic consumers, industrial, commercial and farming interests and local authorities—are not merely sufficiently broad to ensure representative consumer service committees but encompass the kind of committee envisaged by the Government when we discussed similar amendments in Committee. The director will probably welcome such guidance being written into the Bill because it does not merely provide him with an appropriate benchmark; it enables him to respond to any pressures that may be placed upon him at any time with regard to the composition of those committees. The appointment of the chairman is a joint appointment by the Secretary of State and the director, but the membership of the committees is entirely within the director's sphere of action.
As I said, I feel that what is proposed here is fair and reasonable. It is desirable to include it in the Bill rather than to leave it merely as something that has been talked about at various stages during the Bill's consideration. I feel that we have drawn the categories sufficiently broadly to ensure that we produce committees which will be representative and efficient in the discharge of the duties envisaged for the customer service committees. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Amendment No. 35 would require the director, as far as reasonably practicable, to secure that there was one-third representation on the customer service committees from each of three main groups; namely, domestic customers; industrial, commercial and farming interests, taken as one group; and local authorities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, is no doubt aware, the director general designate has annnounced that in making appointments to the customer service committees he would draw members from broadly the same groups as the present consumer consultative committees and intends to allocate three or four places to each. Those groups are indeed the same as those stated in this amendment and representation of this threefold balance of interests is consistent with statements I made in Committee and statements my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment made in another place. There is therefore no difference between us, the director general designate and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, in what the composition of those committees should be.
We do not, however, consider that it would be right to make it a rigid statutory requirement that there should be a one-third representation from each of those groups. I appreciate that the noble Lord's amendment contains a reference to as far as reasonably practicable, but that would exclude adjustments to the representation where the director general felt that having regard to the particular characteristics of any region and of the relevant expertise and knowledge of those nominated, there should be a different weighting of those three groups. In other words, it is our view that the arrangements for determining the particular balance between those interest groups on any individual customer service committee should be left to the discretion of the director general. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that we disagree with the noble Lord and hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, disappointing though it was. We thought in our innocence that by drafting such broad categories, which are already the subject of agreement between us, we would have fully accommodated the present and the future so far as concerns the director. I understand that in respect of local authority representatives consultations have already begun with the local authority associations with a view to suggesting names for representation.
One can never predict the future, and one does not know whether the water authorities and the customer service committees which are being set up under the Bill will have a long or particularly happy life. I should have preferred to see this point in the Bill rather than merely well evidenced by our discussions in Committee and on Report.
As I said when moving the amendment, I should have thought that the director would welcome those broad categories because it would not merely have enabled him to appoint representative committees but would have given him some protection against any pressures that may be placed upon him as regards

827
representation on the committees. Nevertheless, in view of what the Minister has said, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment. On the whole, I feel that we are making the wrong decision, because by including those categories in the Bill we should not have inhibited anyone but we should have protected the Director General of Water Services. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 36:
Before Clause 7, insert the following new clause:—
("Transfer of functions relating to planning etc.
Functions relating to consultation with regard to planning and environmental assessment matters which prior to the transfer date were carried out by a water authority shall, from that date, be transferred to the Authority and no water or sewerage undertaker shall undertake such functions from that date.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with issues which were debated at some length at the Committee stage under Amendment No. 73 proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. He raised a concern which was shared by many noble Lords in all parts of the House about the consultative role of the water industry in land use planning. The concern that he specifically expressed was that while a statutory consultative role was appropriate for the water and sewerage industry, while it is in the public sector, it is totally inappropriate when the water and sewerage industries are transferred to the private sector. What he sought in the amendment was that the consultative role in land use planning should be transferred to the National Rivers Authority. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, supported that argument.
The Minister gave an answer which appeared promising in the sense that he reminded the Committee that Article 18 of the General Development Order could be amended. He then said that it would be amended to provide for the NRA to be consulted in all cases where water authorities were consulted at the moment. Concerning one side of the equation, ensuring that the public sector of water and sewerage still has consultation rights, then we are entirely happy with that.
However, what is not clear from what the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said in his reply, is whether the plcs, the water and sewerage undertakings, would retain a statutory consultative role. That is the other part of the equation. My understanding was that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, wanted the statutory consultative role transferred entirely from the plcs to the NRA, and that the plcs would therefore be in the same position as any other private companies. They would not have special privileges that no other private companies would have, and the NRA would exercise all the consultative rights and obligations concerning land use planning.
I am still not clear from the noble Earl's reply to the debate whether that is the case or whether it is proposed that the water and sewerage undertakings
828
should retain statutory consultative rights. We do not think that they should. We have put down this amendment in order to secure that they do not. But it is primarily a probing amendment to establish the Government's intentions. If the Government confirm that it is not intended that the undertakings should continue to have these consultation rights, then we shall be very happy to withdraw the amendment. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is quite right in saying that at the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Onslow moved an amendment which would have had the effect of placing upon the NRA duties relating to consultation regarding planning and environmental assessment matters, as defined by Article 18 of the General Development Order. That is so, and I supported that proposition.
However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has overlooked the fact that at the Committee stage, in order to maintain that continuity in planning matters which I said was important, my noble friend Lord Arran was able to assure us that to maintain the present statutory provisions the Government intended to amend Article 18 of the GDO:
"to provide for the NRA to be consulted in all cases where water authorities are consulted at the moment".
That would automatically ensure that the NRA was involved as a consultee under the environmental assessment regulations. My noble friend Lord Onslow then asked the following question:
"Is my noble friend saying that basically he agrees and that we do not need to do anything about the matter because it can be achieved by other means"?—[Official Report, 4.5.89; col. 349.]
My noble friend Lord Arran replied, "Yes". My noble friend Lord Onslow then said, "That is terrific".
I think it is best to leave this matter to be dealt with by amending Article 18 of the GDO in order to achieve the purpose which we all have in mind. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I think it is better to do that than to accept his new clause because, quite frankly, I do not see his new clause fitting comfortably into the present law. I think it is better to amend the present law in the simple way proposed than to accept this new clause which would clearly overlap with the present law. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench give a reply, but I should have thought this amendment would not really achieve a useful purpose.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am of course a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not find my answer in Committee a little more than just promising. I hope I can be a little more convincing this evening.
Local planning authorities are currently required to consult water authorities before granting planning permission where the application concerns the types of development specified in Article 18 of the Town

829
and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. The types specified are development which may affect rivers, streams or ground water and most development relating to the retention, treatment or disposal of sewage, trade waste, slurry or sludge. These relate to water authority pollution control functions which would be transferred to the NRA.
The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 require certain projects which are likely to have significant environmental effects to be subject to an assessment of those effects before planning permission may be given. The procedures require the developer to prepare an environmental statement, making use, when appropriate, of information in the possession of relevant public authorities. On receipt of this statement, the local planning authority must consult on it, as it does on the related planning application. The 1988 regulations specify that the bodies which must provide information and must be consulted shall be the statutory consultees specified in the General Development Order together with one or two others, including the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.
As I explained before, the new clause is unnecessary. As I have already said in Committee, we intend to amend Article 18 of the General Development Order to provide for the NRA alone to be consulted in all cases where water authorities are consulted at the moment. This amendment to the GDO will also automatically ensure that the NRA is involved as consultee under the environmental assessment regulations. I hope that this is a more promising reply for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and that it will convince him of the need to remove the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am completely satisfied by that answer. The amendment was intended as a probing amendment. It has achieved the statement by the noble Earl that the NRA alone will be consulted. If I missed that in Committee, I apologise. However, I do not think the noble Earl said that before. I think that what he said previously left open the possibility that the plcs would also be consulted. He has now made it crystal clear that the functions, responsibilities and rights will be transferred only to the NRA and will not be retained in any way by the privatised plcs, which is what we would have intended. I am very happy for that to be done by an amendment to the general development order rather than by amendment on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [General duties with respect to water supply and sewerage services]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 6, line 27, after ("exercise") insert ("the following powers and perform the following duties, that is to say").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 37 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 46. Clause 7 is concerned with the general duties of the Secretary of State and the director. These amendments to the clause are essentially technical and consequential on the amendment to Clause 20 passed by your Lordships at Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos.38 to 40:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("conferred") and insert ("and duties conferred or imposed").
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("conferred") and insert ("and duties conferred or imposed").
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("the powers") and insert ("and perform the powers and duties").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 6, line 38, leave out ("properly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 45, 47 and 49. These are amendments to Clause 7 of the Bill. They return, in a different form, to a theme which took up a good deal of time when the matter was considered in Committee. They took up a good deal of time because they are of absolutely fundamental importance to the Bill and to the credibility of the Government in putting forward water privatisation as a matter which benefits consumers and the environment.
The trouble with Clause 7 of the Bill is that that is not what the Bill now says. Subsection (2) of the clause places overriding obligations on the Secretary of State and the director, first, to secure that the functions of a water undertaker and a sewerage undertaker are properly carried out—in other words, presumably, to see that the service is maintained—and, secondly, to secure that the undertakers make reasonable returns on their capital. I shall deal with the matter of reasonable returns on capital when I come to Amendment No. 44. In the meantime this group of amendments seeks to ensure that the interests of consumers are promoted to the same level as the interests of the privatised undertakings and of their shareholders. If that is not the case the Government are not carrying out the policy which they have proclaimed as being the primary justification for the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 add to the functions of the water undertaker and sewerage undertaker the proviso that those functions should be carried out in the interests of consumers. If that is the case, the word "properly" is no longer necessaiy.
Amendment No. 43 makes the duty to make a profit subject to the need to run a proper service in the interests of the consumers. It removes what is otherwise a tension between service quality

831
standards on the one hand and profitability on the other which are at the moment given equal weight in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of Clause 7.
Amendment No. 45 takes the duty to defend the interests of customers in respect of charges and service quality and links it to the general duty to run the industry in the interests of consumers. The present wording says that the duty to protect consumers is explicitly subject to the duty to run the industry and to make a profit.
I am not under any illusion that the primary interest of consumers is to ensure that the water and sewerage undertakings survive. There is no dispute about that. But the conditions on which they survive and make a profit must be in the interests of consumers. The Government's propaganda for the Bill and the propaganda from the Water Authorities Association which is already starting can be given effect to only if these amendments are agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 49 make the duties of promoting economy and efficiency and facilitating effective competition in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (3) subject to the requirement to run the industry in the interests of consumers. What we are doing here is taking away the provisions whereby the primary duties on the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services are to the privatised companies and their shareholders and replacing them with primary duties to the consumers. That is what the Government have said the Bill is about. That is what the Bill should be about, if we accept the original intention to privatise water. That is what these amendments seek to provide.
I said that I would have to come back to this point at a later stage and I make no apology for doing so. The Minister himself said that this is, in effect, the most important clause in the Bill. He said:
"It is this clause which will determine the relationship between the Secretary of State and director general on the one hand and the new water and sewerage undertakers on the other. This clause is crucial as it determines the climate for the water industry after privatisation".—[Official Report, 4/5/89; col. 354.]
I agree entirely with that comment. I believe that that is a correct way of describing the primary duties of the Secretary of State and the director general, but it is necessary—indeed it is essential if public confidence in the water and sewerage industry is to be restored and maintained—that the interests of consumers should be paramount. That is what these amendments seek to achieve. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in Clause 7(2)(a) there is a duty on the Secretary of State and the director general to exercise their powers in the way best calculated to secure that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out everywhere. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 would make the duty narrower. The role of the Secretary of State and the director general would be limited to securing that the functions were carried out in the interests of consumers.
832
With respect, I question whether the noble Lord has fully thought through these amendments. They would mean, for example, that the Secretary of State or the director general would not be under a duty to enforce statutory and licence requirements on water and sewerage undertakers not directly related to the interests of consumers. I fear that that would cast substantial doubt, for example, on the duties in Clause 8 to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. Those duties might not always be strictly in the interests of the consumer. I am sure that that weakening of the duty is not what the noble Lord seeks. We must therefore strongly resist this attempt to constrain the Secretary of State and the director general, which may be well motivated but is certainly misconceived.
Amendments Nos. 43, 45, 47 and 49 would all change the priority of the duties in Clause 7 in one way or another. Amendment No. 43 would make the duty to secure that companies are able to finance the proper carrying out of their functions subordinate to the duty to ensure that those functions are carried out. Amendment No. 45 is a consequential amendment, maintaining the existing relationships between the primary duty in subsection (2)(a) and the secondary duties in subsection (3), but leaving in limbo the relationship of subsection (2)(b) and subsection (3). Amendments Nos. 47 and 49 would then take the secondary duties in subsection (3) and rank those. The overall effect would be to leave the Secretary of State and the director general with a duty to exercise powers by reference to four divisions of priority. I contend that it would amount to a recipe for confusion or what my honourable friend the Minister of State for Water and Planning, Mr. Howard, called in another place something resembling
"one of those games on breakfast cereal packets, requiring a contestant to use his skill and judgment to rank a series of qualities in descending order of importance".
Let us consider first Amendments Nos. 43 and 45. They seek to subordinate the financing of the proper carrying out of functions to the duty to secure that those functions are properly carried out in all of England and Wales. I had suspected that the slogan "People before profit" might be used in the Chamber tonight, but it has not been so far. The fact is that these primary duties go hand in hand. They are in a symbiotic relationship. I explained this in Committee—the Hansard reference is cols. 354 and 355—and concluded that the creation of the dual framework was quite deliberate, reflecting the paramount importance for customers that companies are not only obliged to carry out their functions properly but must be capable of financing those functions.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 49 seek to place the protection of customers in relation to charges and other service standards as of greater importance than the promotion of economy and efficiency and the facilitation of effective competition. The difficulty here is that the promotion of economy and efficiency and effective competition are all in the interests of customers. These latter two amendments would make very little difference to the way in which the

833
Secretary of State and the director exercised their powers, but I have to say that they would add confusion as to the purpose of the ranking.
I have taken some time to go very carefully through these points for, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, reminded us, Clause 7 is one of the most important clauses of the Bill, and I wanted to set out very clearly why we had set out the Bill in the way that we have.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clear reply. I must say that I think he is putting a great deal of significance on to the one word "properly". All that paragraph (a) says is that it is the duty of the Secretary of State or the director
"to secure that the functions of a water undertaker and of a sewerage undertaker are properly carried out as respects every area of England and Wales".
The Minister is saying that all the specific duties set out in Clause 8 depend on the word "properly" and that if that word is not there none of the protections in Clause 8 will have adequate effect. I find it very far-fetched to say that to take out the word "properly" has all that significance. As the Minister well knows, it certainly was not our intention that the specific environmental and recreational duties set out in Clause 8 should be in any way weakened. We do not believe that our amendments have that effect. Their effect is to change the hierarchy of priorities in the duties.
Judging from his reply, the Minister seems to think that what we are doing is proposing for the first time a hierarchy of duties which is going to cause difficulties. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that the hierarchy of duties is already well established in the Bill as drafted. The hierarchy is only too clear: it is in the interests of the shareholders, the water undertakers and sewerage undertakers to secure a reasonable return on their capital to finance the proper carrying out of the functions of these undertakers, which is the primary duty of the Secretary of State and the director. The hierarchy is well established. It is shareholders and private companies first and consumers second. What we are trying to do is to put it the other way round and put the consumer first.
I have said that it was not our intention in these amendments in any way to weaken the duties set out in Clause 8. The Minister says otherwise, and I have to listen to what he says because, after all, he has been concerned with the complex structure of the Bill and with the linkages between the different parts of the Bill.
For that reason alone, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, it does not take away from the fundamental difference that we find between the Bill and the statements made by Ministers and spokesmen on all sides, including those speaking for the Conservative Party at the European elections. They are claiming that this is a Bill to protect the consumer and the environment. The truth is that this is a Bill which puts the interests of the private companies and their shareholders first and the interests of consumers second.
834
For that reason we adhere to the view that our amendments are essential if the claims made for the Bill are to be sustained. However, if they prove to be defective in drafting, it may be appropriate if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 45, at end insert—
("(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(B) above, a reasonable return on capital shall not exceed 5 per cent. per annum, or such other percentage as may be determined by the Secretary of State within two months of the passing of this Act or varied in a subsequent year in accordance with subsection (2B) below.
(2B) The Secretary of State may, in any subsequent year after the first year in which the provisions of this section apply in respect of the return of capital of any undertaker, vary the figure specified in subsection (2A) above or, as the case may be, the figure determined by him within the period therein specified.
(2C) Where any other figure than 5 per cent. is determined in respect of any year, the Secretary of State shall at the time of such determination issue a statement as to the likely effect on charges to domestic and non-domestic consumers in the area of each undertaker of the level determined as compared with a return of 5 per cent. per annum in respect of that undertaker.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will have to forgive me. This is a complicated matter and it deserves a certain amount of exposition which I cannot very well cut short.
The purpose of this amendment is to put some real meaning into the phrase in Section 7(2)(b) of "reasonable returns". There are various ways in which a reasonable rate of return might be calculated bearing in mind that the two primary objectives must be, first—I am not putting forward a revolutionary Socialist view—that the Government have to secure that the prices which the water and sewerage undertakings can charge are enough to obtain investors at the time of the flotation. Secondly, they have to secure that the prices are not so high that the water and sewerage undertakings are achieving what is in effect monopoly rent; in other words, that they are taking advantage of the fact that they are natural monopolies in order to charge higher prices than would otherwise be justified. That is the balance that has to be made.
The Bill as drafted makes no attempt to set out either the conclusion or the argument leading up to that conclusion. We believe that it is important—and it is only at this stage that we have been able to get anywhere near achieving it—that Parliament should say what the rate of return should be in order to ensure that any flotation is fair not only to the investors but, more importantly, to the taxpayers and to the customers.
We are proposing that a reasonable rate of return on capital should be defined as being 5 per cent. per annum but that the Secretary of State should have the power to vary that. When he varies it, he should specify the reasoning behind it and everything should be made clear.
Let me make it clear straight away that by 5 per cent. I mean 5 per cent. on a current cost accounting basis. If we look at the 1987–1988 accounts of the water authorities—which are the most recent accounts available—we see that the assets of the authorities amount to £27·1 billion.
If any calculation of rate of return were to be on the basis of that £27·1 billion, and if the Government were to say for the sake of argument that the rate of return should be 8 per cent.—and that is the figure that has been suggested, because it falls roughly between a pure equity figure and a public utility figure—then the increase in cost of an 8 per cent. return, or even a 5 per cent. return, on that £27·1 billion, would be horrific, as would the increase in prices which would have to be charged in order to meet that figure. To meet an 8 per cent. return there would have to be profits of £2·4 billion, which would require an increase of 58 per cent. over the 1987–88 levels. To make a 5 per cent. return—which is what we are talking about—would require profits of £ 1·35 billion, which would mean price rises of 27 per cent. above the 1987–88 level.
However, we can put that on one side, although it is theoretically possible, because the Minister, Mr. Michael Howard, has said that the rate of return would not be on the net value of the physical assets, but on the rate of return on the money paid for the industry—that is a figure of more like between £5 and £7 billion, which is what is currently estimated—plus any new investments or new money put into the industry.
If we then consider what that means, the Water Authorities Association seems to think that £1·6 billion investment would be required to put things right. Warburgs, which are the Government's advisers in this matter, think that the investment in environmental improvements would be of the order of £7·1 billion. Whichever figure one takes has to be in some kind of range; but it looks as if the financial capital of the industry, on Mr. Howard's definition, would be of the order of between £14 and £16 billion. That means that at an 8 per cent. rate of return, the increases required over the next decade would be between 14 and 20 per cent.
The further complication—I apologise for this, but it is essential—is the issue of writing off debts. The Minister referred at Committee stage to the intention of the Government to write off the debts to the public loans board, and said that those debts would be replaced by a new capital structure involving equity and debt. What he did not say was what proportion of it would be equity and what proportion of it would be debt. He left open the possibility that there would be no writing off of debt at all, and only a restructuring of debt among the different water undertakings. Clearly such a restructuring would be essential if they are all to be privatised. He has also left open the possibility that a substantial part—or even all—of the £5·5 billion debt would be written off.
If we can estimate that debt charges are of the order of £550 million a year at present and all that debt is written off then the prices to customers would
836
fall and the increases that I have talked about as a result of the required reasonable rate of return to the shareholders would be significantly greater.
The second complication we have to take into account is the conversion between current cost and historic cost accounting. The money markets at the moment are accustomed to dealing with historic cost accounting, mainly because agreements on current cost accounting standards are by no means universally accepted. The difficulty with conversion is that it would have to be on the basis of the price indices related to the capital cost of the water industry and not related to any other factor. So it is not a simple matter of using the RPI as a basis for conversion. One has to do so by looking at the capital costs of the water industry. The 1987 to 1988 accounts show that the water industries made 15·6 per cent. on historic cost. The best estimate that one can make is that 5 per cent. on current cost, which is proposed in the amendment, is equivalent to 18·4 per cent. on historic cost.
Let us accept that the 15·6 per cent. on historic cost is not good enough to secure an adequate flotation. A figure of 18·4 per cent. on historic cost, which is what our amendment means, is adequate for flotation. However, a figure of 8 per cent. on current cost, which is the best estimate of the Government's figure, would mean a rate of return on historic cost of 29·4 per cent. That is a grossly excessive figure for the purpose of the flotation and will amount to a windfall for the shareholders at the expense of the consumers. That is because the consumers would have to pay higher prices in order to meet those dividend payments.
I accept that there are further problems and complications, even after nine minutes. One cannot summarise these matters in no time at all. The issues have been under debate in the department and with its financial advisers for at least six months and probably a good deal longer. I accept that on day 1 current cost will, by definition, be equal to historic cost. But the situation will change rapidly after day 1. I accept also that the historic cost which I have been quoting on the real assets is not necessarily the same as the historic cost that there would be on the financial assets as defined by the Minister for water and planning in the future.
The point of this complicated analysis is that if taxpayers are to be reassured that they are not being cheated by the privatisation deal and customers that they are not paying an excessive price, the Government must put their money where their mouth is. They must say what is the figure to which they are working and what is the effect of that on prices and on the return to shareholders after flotation.
The amendment and my exposition of it are intended to argue that 5 per cent. on current cost is enough and not too much to secure a successful flotation. At the same time it is enough and not too much to secure that there is no need for a write-off of debts. We shall see whether the Government are prepared to say what their figure is likely to be, but any more than that would result in a windfall to shareholders and excessive price rises for water

837
customers. In our view, that would not be acceptable. It would not be in the spirit of the arguments which the Government have been putting forward for the Bill.
If the Government are not prepared to respond and put their figure on the costs, then it can only be said—as I said earlier in Committee—that this is a hollow Bill. It deals with the formulae for water privatisation but not with the real facts about it. It is essential that Parliament should take part in a debate on the real facts of water privatisation. That is what our amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is suggesting that under the Bill no more than 5 per cent. should be earned on the capital to be raised by the water and sewerage undertakers. He has been very ingenious but, of course, this is a transparent attempt to achieve by another means what my noble friend Lord Nugent tried to achieve at the start of the second day of our Committee when he suggested that, instead of having plcs which would be free to raise capital without fixed dividends on the market, we should have the old type of water companies under the companies consolidation Act under which the capital has to be raised with fixed dividends.
I do not believe that there is—and perhaps I may borrow an expression used a long time ago by a famous Chancellor of the Exchequer—a cat in hell's chance of raising the capital if we were to have fixed dividends. In the nature of things, there has to be an opportunity to raise ordinary capital on the basis of what profits can be reasonably achieved.
There is no doubt that this is a difficult Bill. It is a difficult and brave concept. However, bearing in mind all that needs to be done which can only be achieved by raising capital, which can only be raised on the open market, I believe that the Government are right to stick to the view that there must be an opportunity to have variable dividends, and it should not be limited to 5 per cent. or any other reasonably low percentage.
Quite frankly, to think otherwise is to be living in an unreal financial world. The markets of this country would just not provide the capital—and I am talking of the financial markets—if the scheme put forward by the noble Lord in his amendment were to be accepted. Quite frankly, I do not believe that one needs to say any more.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for that constructive intervention. That answers many of the points of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and sees straight through the true meaning behind the amendment. I am tempted to give a short reply to the noble Lord, but this is an important matter; I believe that it is surrounded by considerable confusion and that the waters have now become rather muddied. I believe that a full clarification is needed. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me. I know that those on the Liberal Benches who are so keen to go home will be very happy to stay so that their minds can be put at rest before they do so.
838
These amendments to Clause 7 are designed to enable the Secretary of State to fix a maximum ceiling on the rate of return on capital of the new water and sewerage undertakers. The ceiling is to be 5 per cent., or a figure to be set by the Secretary of State for later years. And where a figure different from 5 per cent. is set, the Secretary of State is to be obliged to issue a statement describing the effects on charges of that decision. In other words the Secretary of State is to be able to deprive companies of their right to earn a return on capital, so long as he justifies it by explaining how much his decision will reduce charges for customers.
For complete clarity, I think I should first stress that this amendment would not impose a direct mechanism for limiting profits, as some might suppose. This amendment simply refers to the rate of return on capital employed. We do not believe that there is any case for an arbitrary limitation of the type proposed. The director general simply needs to ensure that efficient companies will provide reasonable remuneration on capital. That is needed so that the companies are able to raise finance, and are thus able to finance the proper carrying out of their functions.
However, this debate has gone rather wide. We have listened with interest to arguments about the rate of return for investors in this industry. We have listened too to the emotional appeal raised at an earlier stage that water is somehow too special a raw material, for its treatment and distribution to be a business for profit.
In Committee, one of the most stimulating debates concluded in the decision not to amend the Bill to provide controls over dividends and reserves, as my noble friend Lord Renton reminded us. That was the occasion when the Opposition parties voted against the director general and the price control mechanism.
On this side of the House we do not believe that controls on dividends will deliver the efficient private sector businesses from which both customers and shareholders will benefit. I have said it before—but it is worth repeating—that it is the director general who will be the economic regulator for this industry and who will ensure that the new water and sewerage undertakers do not exploit their near monopoly at the tap. He will have all the powers necessary to protect all the customers and potential customers of all the companies. In particular, he will regulate charges by setting a ceiling for price increases and in doing this he will have the major advantage of being able to compare up to 39 different companies. No other director general will have this advantage of comparative competition.
We strongly believe that there should be control over prices rather than dividends. The director generals of gas and telecommunications have already shown how customers' interests can be well served through a price control system: one that allows the industry to be profitable if it is efficient, but does not guarantee dividends if it is inefficient. It would be as inappropriate to put a ceiling on dividends as to put a ceiling on potential efficiency improvements.

839
This brings me to the heart of what is wrong with this amendment; for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seems to assume that the Secretary of State and director general must guarantee a rate of return on capital employed and this leads him to assume that they need to have some ceiling on what they guarantee. In fact, the clause refers to a duty to secure that undertakers are able—and I must stress these words "are able"—to finance the proper carrying out of their functions. There is no obligation here on the Secretary of State or director general to ensure that inefficient companies deliver the reasonable return, or indeed make a profit.
As we have already said today, this is the most crucial area of customer protection. Proper provision of services depends on the companies being able to finance those services; without the finance the services will be at risk. Inserting the amendments before the House today would threaten unnecessarily the long term financial stability of the water and sewerage businesses. Perhaps ironically—though I could not vouch for that—it would put at risk the very services the proper provision of which the noble Lord sought earlier to persuade us he aimed to protect.
The 8 per cent. mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is not a final proposal by the Government. The eventual figure may be lower. The noble Lord has offered a range of possibilities for the capital on which the rate should be earned. His figures are speculative. They are not government figures; but as he has raised a number of points, it may help if I explain to the House what the reference to "reasonable rates of return" means and does not mean.
First, let me make clear that the expression does not relate directly to returns to be received by investors. Such returns will depend, whether with equity stock or with debentures, on the price at which investors bought. That is a matter for them. The director general is concerned more with the relationship between the underlying profits of the utility and the capital employed. He needs to ensure that, if the utility is run efficiently, the company will provide reasonable remuneration of capital, thereby allowing it to raise finance. If it cannot raise the finance, it will not be able to provide the services properly, as I have said.
Secondly, this concept of underlying profitability is essentially no different from that which applies to nationalised industries while in the public sector. Were the water authorities not to be privatised, the Government would expect them to earn a return of 8 per cent. real on new investment. This does not of course mean they would have to borrow at that rate of interest. Nationalised industries are at present able to borrow from the National Loan Fund at finer rates, but that ability to borrow more cheaply does not alter the requirement to produce an 8 per cent. return. Effectively it becomes possible to finance some capital investment from charges rather than borrowing, with a strengthening of balance sheets.
Thirdly, a distinction can be made—and is made while in the public sector—between the return
840
required on existing and on new assets. With new assets it is necessary to raise finance at the margin and if the rate of return is not high enough new investment will simply not happen. With existing assets the considerations are very different although regard must clearly be had to the overall financial profile after the two are considered together.
Fourthly, in judging what rate of return is reasonable after privatisation, it is misleading to distinguish, as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, during Committee, between utilities and equities as if the two were mutually exclusive. Risk varies greatly between different types of equity stock. Some equities are utilities, and risk tends to be at the lower end of the spectrum given the nature of the business. In the case of the water utilities, it will be necessary to assess what risk attaches both to the nature of the business and the nature of the regulatory environment.
That is something that needs careful study, in the first place by the Secretary of State and subsequently, in the light of experience, by the director general. There is, however, no reason of principle why a water utility trading in the private sector should require rates of return on new investment substantially different from that currently demanded in the public sector.
Fifthly, following on from this last point, there is no sense in which extra profits need to be made in the private sector to fund dividends. Profits need to be enough to provide a reasonable return, and that return will be split between interest payments for debenture holders, dividend payments for equity holders, and retention for further investment. With privatisation there will be a different carve up of the cake. The cake itself is not necessarily larger or smaller.
Finally, I should stress that the Secretary of State has yet to come to a firm view on what rate of return is appropriate for water utilities. Obviously, advice and research has been commissioned. We are and shall be studying with care what we receive. However, it is most certainly the Government's belief that the price of water to consumers will not be higher than it would be without privatisation, except to meet the high standards that we all seek but especially when we bear in mind that we can allow for efficiency savings that can be achieved in the private sector.
I am grateful to your Lordships for bearing with me, but I thought that it was important to give the noble Lord a full answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I am not alone in being sincerely grateful to the Minister for giving a full answer and for giving us the benefit of the best explanation that we have yet had from the Government of current thinking as regards the reasonable rate of return which is specified in the Bill. Perhaps I may make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in particular, that my

841
amendment is not an attempt to bring in dividend control by the back door. The phrase "reasonable rate of return" comes in the Bill and it was not invented by me.
I am trying to get the Government to say rather more clearly than they have done in the past what is meant by a reasonable rate of return. The answer that we have been given by the Minister is that the Secretary of State has not yet come to a conclusion on the matter. He has not said that the Secretary of State will not come to a conclusion. However, what is the case clearly and transparently for the first time is that the Secretary of State will reach a conclusion but that Parliament will have no part in that conclusion. In other words, the conclusion will not be reached until the Bill has concluded its passage through Parliament.
That is what is so unsatisfactory about this Bill and that is why it is a hollow Bill. It is also why it is necessary to move an amendment of this kind in order to attempt to force the Government to come clean on the matter. I readily accept that some of the figures I have been quoting in defence of the figure of 5 per cent. are best estimates. They are not based on government figures at all, but on an analysis of the 1987–88 accounts of the water authorities. It may well be that the 1988–89 accounts of the water authorities, when produced, will show different figures and then we shall have to do the sums all over again, as will the Secretary of State.
The important fact to show is that on the best figures available to us—if the Secretary of State has better ones, let us hear them—the current suggestion, and not the final one, of an 8 per cent. return on capital is going to produce excessive cost to consumers and an excessive return to shareholders. That is the point that we have demonstrated by these amendments and that is the point that has not been effectively denied by the Minister despite a long and helpful explanation of the Government's current thinking.
The amendment is not one that I wish to pursue in the Division Lobbies because it is not that kind of amendment. It has produced a better understanding than we have had before of government thinking, and for that I am grateful. It has at the same time revealed the fundamental danger of the Bill that the real decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State after the Bill has passed through Parliament and will not be considered by Parliament. That is one of the many reasons why this is a grossly unsatisfactory and dangerous Bill. It is appropriate, however, that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 47, leave out ("the powers") and insert ("and perform the powers and duties").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eleven o'clock.

  PRISON OFFICERS: ASSAULTS—STATISTICS
  PRISON OFFICERS: ASSAULTS—STATISTICS
  CONFISCATED ASSETS
  CONFISCATED ASSETS
  BAIL INFORMATION SCHEMES
  BAIL INFORMATION SCHEMES
  SIB REPORT
  SIB REPORT