Sitting of 25 May 1989

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

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 May], That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 8 June.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 8 June.

  BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 June.

  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 6 June at Seven o'clock.

  WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Sheepmeat Regime
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on the negotiations on the future of the sheepmeat regime.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): Discussions on the Commission's proposals for changes to the sheepmeat regime have made little progress. I suspect that negotiations are likely to continue for some time.
    Mr. Howells: I am sure that many of our sheep farmers would like to know whether the Minister is in favour of the
    1104
    present grading system, the deficiency payment and the headage payment, or is he in favour of further cuts in support systems.
    Mr. MacGregor: I certainly think that we have to tackle the escalating cost of the sheepmeat regime because it has virtually doubled in three years and is now nearly 1.7 million ecus. In terms of the outcome of the regime, I am very much in favour of ensuring a system that will enable our industry to gain full benefits from its excellent structure, efficiency and expertise and from our natural advantages. I suspect that at some stage we will be looking at a different set of proposals, which is why I do not want to be too specific about how exactly we achieve our objectives. I am clear about our objectives and that we want to ensure that our sheepmeat industry has the maximum opportunities in the Community. I have made it clear from the outset that I am opposed to limits on headage payments.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the farmers of south Dorset are particularly well set up and very efficient producers of mutton and lamb, and that they depend very much on the sheepmeat regime. Can my right hon. Friend reassure them that by a combination f the sheepmeat regime and green pound reform the Government will ensure that it is economic to produce mutton and lamb well into the next century?
    Mr. MacGregor: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is very much my objective. Recent decisions that I have secured in the Community have proved that. My hon. Friend will know that the green pound devaluation which we secured in the recent price negotiations was more than double that of our nearest competitors in the Community. That greatly improves the competitive position of our producers and is another indication of how I fight for their interests.
    Mr. Home Robertson: What is the Minister's reaction to the fact that the European Commission wants to do away with variable premiums by 1992? The Commission specifically proposes to impose headage limits for hill livestock compensatory allowances. Is that not a serious threat of discrimination against British producers, especially those in the hills and uplands? Will he take this opportunity to give sheep farmers and their employees a clear statement of his and the Government's intentions for the future of the industry?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that I am determined to fight for their interests in the way that I have always done. I have indicated the extra benefit that we secured in the price negotiations this year. I am as opposed as anyone to the imposition of limits on headage payments, because as well as running against the general objective of the CAP, which is to reward efficient producers and take advantage of natural advantages, it is clearly discriminatory. It also fails to take account of the importance to producers on quite modest incomes of the need to have substantial numbers of sheep in certain parts of the country, especially in Scotland where I have been for the last two days and where I thoroughly discussed these matters with Scottish sheep producers.

    Irradiated Food
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a diagnostic test for irradiated food is yet available.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): Work is continuing to develop tests that could be applied to particular categories of produce. Meanwhile, in those countries where food irradiation is already permitted, control of the process is carried out by licensing and documentary checks as recommended by the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
    Mr. Morgan: Can the Minister confirm that with or without the availability of a diagnostic test his Government have decided to authorise the legitimation of the sale of irradiated food? Perhaps that is inevitable. If we believe everything we read in Vanity Fair the Prime Minister herself believes that ionising radiation in the bath will extend her shelf life. Is it not the case that dodgy produce that has passed its sell-by date is as unacceptable to the British consumer as are Prime Ministers who have passed their sell-by date?
    Mr. Ryder: The World Health Organisation approves of irradiation. More than 20 countries use irradiation, and more than 30 countries, including the United States and France, permit it despite there being no test available to those countries. Under those circumstances, there is no reason why we should not follow suit.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend realise that the consumer finds it unacceptable not to be given the choice of choosing food that is irradiated or not? Until a test is available that can inform the consumer whether food is irradiated it should not be sold in this country.
    Mr. Ryder: I ask my hon. Friend to be patient. Next month we shall publish a report by some of our officials who are drawing up a framework for irradiation. I will be greatly surprised if labelling does not feature among their main recommendations.
    Dr. David Clark: As no diagnostic test currently exists, does the Minister appreciate that not only consumers but farmers, retailers and the Labour party are against irradiated food? The only people in favour are the Government's big business backers. Will the Government back down and respect the will of the British people not to market irradiated food in this country until a diagnostic test is available?
    Mr. Ryder: I have seldom heard such nonsense. The advisory committee on irradiation and novel foods, formerly under the chairmanship of the master of Darwin college, Cambridge, and now under the chairmanship of the vice-chancellor of the university of East Anglia, concluded without doubt that irradiation is safe. All the Government's scientific advisers have shown that it is safe, as has the World Health Organisation. More than 30 countries permit it, so why not Britain?
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the proposed introduction of food irradiation in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Government accept independent scientific advice that food irradiation, properly applied, is safe, and that moreover it offers consumers real health and economic benefits. I have just received the report from officials on the framework of controls that would be necessary if we were to remove the present prohibition. I will announce a decision as soon as consideration of their report has been completed. A number of organisations and individual bodies have drawn attention to specific matters relevant to the controls, and they too will be taken into account in our consideration.
    Mr. Sumberg: I hope that my right hon. Friend will move cautiously. There is widespread public concern that irradiation will merely mask unsafe foods. After all, we have lived happily for generations without it, and can do so in the future. There is a danger that 30 years hence we shall all be back here saying that we should not have taken such a step because there has been damage to life and health.
    Mr. MacGregor: The advice of scientists from 54 countries, based on their consideration of the matter over a long period, is that they believe irradiation is safe. It is important of course that food is not unfit for consumption before it is irradiated. Irradiation can do nothing for food that has already deteriorated, any more than can pasteurisation.
    Provided that there is a proper framework of controls, irradiation will help to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of food, and it has a contribution to make to the reduction of food-borne illnesses. Irradiation has been shown to be effective in significantly reducing the organisms that cause illnesses such as salmonella and listeria. When I present the working party's report on the framework of controls, I hope that we shall then have an informed debate.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Does the Minister accept that, leaving aside the probable dangers of irradiation in terms of the creation of free radicals which may well create chemicals within food which are dangerous to human health, irradiation is dangerous because it is impossible to detect whether the food was unfit before it was irradiated? The only way of detecting whether food is of sufficient quality at present is by examining the bacterial load on that food. We have no means of detecting the original bacterial load before the bacteria have been killed by irradiation.
    Mr. MacGregor: The advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods consists of top-level experts specialising in radiological protection, biochemistry, microbiology, toxicology and nutrition. They have thoroughly examined all aspects of the subject and have come to the clear conclusion that it will not prejudice the safety and wholesomeness of food and that it has certain advantages. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clarke) may be correct in what he said about the Labour party, but I can assure him that he is not correct in what he said about the responses of many consumer organisations, farmers, consumers and others outside the industry.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every winter an advertisement on television shows a young boy who eats a bowl of porridge and then starts to emit a red glow? Is he aware that many members of the public feel

    1107
    that a similar result may occur when they eat irradiated food? It is absolutely necessary that there is public confidence in this matter. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take whatever steps necessary to bring about that confidence?
    Mr. McGregor: Yes, indeed. We ave already received a report from the advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods. There have been many conferences in many countries, and as my hon. Friend said, irradiation is practiced in more than 20 countries and is available in more. It is important to have a proper framework of control in general and to deal with the problem of unfit food. Labelling will also be necessary so that consumers can exercise free choice. I hope that when we publish that report we will have a very thorough debate, which I believe will show that irradiation, properly controlled, can play an important part in food safety.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that a great weakness of the irradiation of food is that it allows unfit food to be dressed up as good food? Is he aware that in this country imported seafood has been found to be unfit for consumption, exported to Holland, irradiated and re-imported to Britain and put on the market?
    Mr. MacGregor: Such matters will be an important aspect of the framework of controls that we shall set up. I urge the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the working party report and the Government's conclusions on it.

    EC Price-fixing
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has received on the outcome of the recent price-fixing negotiations in Brussels.
    Mr. MacGregor: The price settlement was very satisfactory for the United Kingdom. The green pound devaluations and reductions in the milk co-responsibility levy which I secured have been particularly welcomed in the House and elsewhere.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is entitled to gentle if not ecstatic congratulations on that generally satisfactory outcome? Is it not particularly good that there has been a step towards reducing the milk co-responsibility levy and will he press for further progress in that regard?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the major breakthroughs in this year's price negotiations was that we achieved a reduction in the milk co-responsibility levy across the board, and elimination of it in less-favoured areas. We also secured a commitment that that would be the first stage in further developments towards phasing it out. It is particularly satisfactory that many other Ministers now recognise that the milk co-responsibility levy does not necessarily have a part to play in the CAP reforms. I hope to extend that to cereals. I assure my hon. Friend that I will be pressing for further progress in future price negotiations.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the recent changes in interest rates will be taken into acount in future price-fixing negotiations, as they are creating adverse financial conditions for farmers in my constituency? Returning to headage payments, is the
    1108
    Minister aware that 884 farms in my constituency and in Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale are in receipt of hill livestock compensatory allowances, and the headage payments restrictions would adverseley affect them? We welcome the Minister's support, and hope that he will strengthen his resolve to ensure that those arrangements are not interfered with.
    Mr. MacGregor: The next price negotiations—I am almost tempted to say thank goodness because they take so much time—will not begin for another nine months or so. It would not be right for me to comment on what general aspects of agriculture we shall be considering then. The draft proposals for the hill livestock compensatory allowances are only at an early stage of consideration and I am sure that there will be long negotiations on them. I have made clear my position on headage payments limits, but I must point out that one of the difficulties facing us is that a number of other member states are trying to skew the many elements of the common agricultural policy far more towards very small farmers. That is not in the interests of agriculture in the Community as a whole. However, it is one of the factors that they will be taking into account in looking at the limitations, so I shall have quite a battle. I am clear that it would be a mistake to extend the system any further. I voted against the beef regime recently because I disliked the limitation on headage payments there.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House what effect the devaluation of the green pound will have on farmers' incomes?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to say that the changes in the green pound this year will, of themselves, add about £155 million to farmers' incomes, but will have a negligible effect on the retail prices index.
    Mr. Ron Davies: That, of course, will not do anything to offset the 20 per cent. loss in farm incomes from 'which farmers have suffered since 1983. Can the Minister tell us whether, when he was in Brussels, he discussed the pricing of organic produce? Can he tell us especially whether he tried to convert his colleagues in Brussels to the view advanced in Britain by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who said a couple of weeks ago that he regarded the production of organic food as another means by which farmers rip off consumers?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is not what my right hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Yes, it is.
    Mr. MacGregor: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, we did not discuss the pricing of organic produce in Brussels and we have not done so before. The increase in organic production has a part to play—although in my own view, it is not a major part—in the development of agriculture and it is important to allow it to develop because I know that some consumers especially want organic food. It is important that organic produce should be defined correctly and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome our recent announcement about an agreement on standards for organic produce, which is an essential first step in the development of organic produce.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend won many advantages for British farmers in the Brussels negotiations. Did he have an opportunity to discuss the fruit and vegetable regime, which still suffers from many inefficiencies, costs about £1 billion ecu a year and has been sharply criticised by the Court of Auditors?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have noticed that the Court of Auditors has just criticised the operation of the regime and I am trying to get hold of a copy of its report myself because I want to study it urgently. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the price negotiations. We managed to extend the stabilisers to certain further vegetables and there have been, therefore, reductions in price there, which will be helpful in dealing with some of the critical aspects of the regime that my hon. Friend has in mind.

    Whales
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in reducing the damage to the world's whale population.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): The moratorium on commercial whaling, agreed by the International Whaling Commission, has been the major step in reducing damage to the world's whale population. It has been in place since 1985 and effectively observed since 1987. The United Kingdom has played a leading role in achieving that and in tackling possible loopholes.
    Mr. Banks: May I thank the Minister for his sterling work on behalf of the world's whale population? Does he agree that far more needs to be done, especially in respect of the actions of the Japanese? Does he agree that the Japanese Government seen to be positively venal in the way in which they abuse the world's animal resources, especially whales and elephant ivory? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to call in the Japanese ambassador and tell him that if the Japanese continue to exploit almost to extinction some of the most wonderful animals on this planet, we will stop buying their wretched cars and hi-fi?
    Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I have a fellow feeling for both whales and elephants. We have taken the lead in sponsoring resolutions against Japanese whaling in the International Whaling Commission. Despite attracting 16 votes in favour and only four against, our latest proposal failed to be adopted by just one single vote. Nevertheless, the result clearly demonstrated the serious concern that exists not only in this House but around the world and Japan should pay firm heed to that.
    Mr. Dickens: Is the Minister aware of how deeply the nation feels about the plight of whales and elephants? How much whale and elephant meat—
    Mr. Speaker: On whales, please.
    Mr. Dickens: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned elephants. What steps are being taken to prevent both those meats being imported for dog food?
    Mr. Thompson: I do not have a specific answer to my hon. Friend's question but I shall write to him on that matter.

    Lamb Variable Premium
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how long he expects the lamb variable premium to continue.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: There are complex negotiations ahead. We must ensure that the future regime, whether through variable premiums or some other means, enables our industry, including that in Northern Ireland to prosper and gain full advantage from the excellent structure, efficiency and expertise that it already has.
    Mr. Marshall: In the light of the need to continue to reduce consumption of animal fats, does the Minister accept that any scheme succeeding the present premium should also encourage and favour the production of lean meat?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, in fact we have just reduced the maximum weight payable on fat lambs from 26·5 kg to 21 kg, which does exactly what the hon. Gentleman has requested.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Minister mentioned Northern Ireland in his answer, what does he see as being the future of the sheepmeat regime as we move towards 1992?
    Mr. Thompson: I see the sheepmeat regime, especially that in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, moving forward with greater exports and greater efficiency. We have already exported 23,572 tonnes of sheep and mutton this year and we hope that that will continue.

    Suckler Cow Premium
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to persuade the EC to concentrate beef support on the suckler cow.
    Mr. MacGregor: In the discussion on the reform of the beef regime we pressed for reduced levels of intervention support and increased direct payments to producers, particularly specialist beef producers. I am pleased to say that the case for concentrating more support on the suckler cow was recognised and we secured the possibility of a major increase in the suckler cow premium which will, following the announcement that I made recently about United Kingdom national financing, be set 42 per cent. higher in 1989–90 at the maximum permissible of £47·43 per cow.
    Mr. Gill: When my right hon. Friend discusses these matters with our European partners, will he remind them that in concentrating support for beef on the suckler cow rather than on intervention and on headage payments, with all the difficulties and problems to which they give rise, they would be helping a system that would be much easier to administer, much less prone to fraud and which would target aid to rural areas and specifically to the primary producers? Will he also remind them that that in its turn would help to keep people and families in the

    1111
    countryside, which would be helpful in producing a high quality product in a natural way and bring tremendous nutritional value to the consumer?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with all those points. We now have a policy that is more market oriented, and that too is in the interests of the consumer. Those were the points that I had in mind when we pressed for the changes that we have now secured.
    Mr. Beggs: In future, will small farmers who at present are earning more from part-time employment off their farms, benefit from all the payments that are made available on suckler cows?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I think that is so.
    Mr. Boswell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing a 42 per cent. increase in the suckler cow premium, not only from Europe but in negotiations with our own Treasury. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of not rushing into any proposal to amalgamate the suckler cow premium with the remaining value of the headage payment, certainly not for the present, and under no circumstances when there might he a headage limit on the suckler cow premium as well?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are no further proposals on this front at present, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister keep particularly in mind that any headage limitation is just as inappropriate in this area as it is for sheep, particularly in parts of the country such as Northumberland, where farms units are large and where the nature of the land and the acreages involved are such that large numbers are necessary?
    Mr. MacGregor: The point about large numbers being necessary is one that I have stressed constantly in relation to limits on headage payments. As I indicated earlier on the special beef premium, I eventually voted against the final package because it still contained that element. I am sorry to say that we could not muster a qualifying blocking minority, but I indicated my position by voting as I did.

    Licensed Trade (Tenants)
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to take any action in response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendation on licensed trade tenants' security contained in its report on the supply of beer.
    Mr. Ryder: Government decisions on the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will, of course, be taking account of the views of the National Licensed Victuallers Association.
    Mr. Colvin: I should like him also to take into account the views of my hon. Friend, because he bears responsibility for tenant security for licensees; I do not know why. He has been subject to a considerable amount of lobbying over the years by publicans who are concerned about their tenant security. As the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer recommended that publicans now become subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 my hon. Friend will
    1112
    obviously want to express an opinion to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the House would like to know what that opinion is.
    Mr. Ryder: As soon as the report was published, I met the NLVA. Its views have been passed on to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Morley: Is it not fair to say that the Minister should have consideration for the small producers of food? That could apply also to small producers in the brewing industry. The small producers have been squeezed out and crushed for far too long by the juggernauts, the few, large brewers. The report gives small breweries a chance to get their beers into more chains through the guest beer slot and therefore encourages those businesses. Should not the Minister make representations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to defend those people?
    Mr. Ryder: Conscientious to a fault, I also met the small brewers soon after the report was published. It is inconceivable that my noble Friend is unaware of their views.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the tenant of a pub, particularly in a rural area, plays a vital role in the community? Is he not concerned that if we erode the position of the tenant, we shall be doing great damage to rural communities? Therefore, will he not prevail upon his right hon. Friend to amend the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is tempting me, but I will resist the temptation. I am sure, having spoken to my noble Friend, that he is fully aware of the point of view that has been expressed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend stop being so coy? He has not only a right to an opinion but a duty to have an opinion. Is he aware that on this extremely important issue the totally unreconstructed free market philosophy advocated from the Opposition Benches is not shared by all Conservative Members?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is never short of his opinions. He can be certain that I am never short of mine when it comes to talking to my noble Friend.

    Beef Premium
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the new beef premium.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The special premium for beef production, which replaced the beef variable premium, was introduced in the United Kingdom with effect from 3 April 1989. The first payments under the scheme were made to producers at the end of April.
    Mr. Clarke: What are the Minister's views on headage limits as a means of targeting support to smaller farmers?
    Mr. Thompson: I completely dislike headage limits. That is why we voted against the proposal in the Council of Europe.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree with the farming industry's opinion that, because of the decline in the national dairy herd of about 1·5 per cent. to 2 per

    1113
    cent. a year, we shall need an increase in the suckler cow herd of about 4 per cent. a year to meet the flow of beef required for the United Kingdom market? In the light of that, although the increase in the suckler cow premium to the maximum was welcome, is it possible that it will be insufficient to ensure that growth in the suckler herd? Will my hon. Friend carefully watch developments in the beef industry and ensure that growth is sustained so that United Kingdom producers can continue to supply their own present market shares and not be disadvantaged accordingly?
    Mr. Thompson: It is too early yet to see what effect the increase will have on dairy and suckler herds. Nevertheless, I will do exactly as my hon. Friend asked in the latter part of his question.
    Mr. Haynes: The Minister is not doing too bad. I liked his answer to the question. Is he aware that we like beautiful British beef on our tables on Sunday? I hope that the Minister will tell Europe where to get off and stop this European rubbish coming to our shores. We should all eat British beef.
    Mr. Thompson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The increase in the suckler cow premium will help to produce that British beef.

    Festival of Food and Farming
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the public's response to the Hyde park festival of food and farming.
    Mr. MacGregor: The festival of food and farming was a great success. Attendance was about 1 million, and visitors clearly enjoyed themselves thoroughly and were impressed. Great credit is due to all concerned in the planning and execution of that most imaginative event.
    Mr. Brown: I congratulate my right hon. Friend's Department on its work on the festival. Does my right hon. Friend intend to repeat the festival? In view of his question, I suggest that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) should be invited to open another festival.
    Mr. MacGregor: A most distinguished guest opened the festival. As my hon. Friend knows, that guest could not have been more distinguished. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I fully recognise what is behind his question, which is the importance of getting over to the public at large, and particularly the urban population, the great contribution that the farming industry makes to our food and to the attractiveness of our countryside. The festival was a great success in that respect. It was the first major Hyde park festival for nearly 150 years. There are obvious difficulties in repeating it year by year. I have noted my hon. Friend's support for the idea of doing it again.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is it not the case that British food and farming has been rather soured by salmonella and listeria scares? Does the Minister agree that the British public want cleaner, healthier and pesticide-free food and a system of agriculture with a lower input of fertilisers and pesticides?
    Mr. MacGregor: The British public quite rightly want an increasing range of high-quality, safe food. There will always be some problems throughout the world about dealing with safety, because salmonella and listeria are in the air that we breathe. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the past few months we have taken a wide range of measures to deal with the new problem of one particular type of salmonella. The festival showed the very high quality of food that British farmers are producing, and the consumers' response was extremely good.
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the festival was a marvellous opportunity to celebrate the centenary of his Department and to recall the excellent work that his Department has done and is doing on behalf of the British consumer in its polices, which it is pursuing vigorously, for the reform of the CAP?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, and in particular for underlining the dual role which we have and which is correctly done in one Department—that of pursuing the best agricultural production that we can possibly have and ensuring that the consumer interest is completely taken into account.

    Quota-hopping
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent quota-hopping.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, substantially foreign-owned fishing vessels can no longer be registered as British fishing vessels and have no entitlement to fish against United Kingdom quotas. Following the failure of certain quota-hopping interests to obtain an injunction suspending the operation of the Act, the Government are monitoring the position and will take any action necessary. The Government are also urging the Commission to take action on a Community level to eradicate the practice of quota-hopping.
    Mr. Harris: I welcome that reply. Will my hon. Friend pass on to our right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General the congratulations of the House and of our fishermen for the determined way in which he fought the case brought by Spanish interests? He fought it right up to the High Court and won. Will my hon. Friend also take a message of unity from this House to the European Commission to the effect that its apparent insistence in favour of quota-hopping would undermine the common fisheries policy in a way that would be absolutely fatal and to the detriment of our own fishermen in particular?
    Mr. Thompson: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to the Law Officers. I noticed in the judgment that the judges congratulated them on the way in which they presented the case. I shall also reinforce, as we have been doing, our unanimity in the House to stamp out quota-hopping.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister explain what he means by monitoring quota-hopping? When he refers to the Government taking "any action necessary", may I ask him to explain what action will be taken, if necessary, to protect the fishing fleet and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Thompson: The action that we have taken in the courts up to now has been successful and has driven quota-hoppers away from our shores. A licence can now be valid only if the vessel to which it relates is British registered. We intend to press on—in the courts, in the Community and elsewhere—to eradicate quota-hopping.

    Council for the Protection of Rural England
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Ryder: I met representatives of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, including the chairman, on 22 March when we discussed several issues of mutual interest.
    Mr. Knight: Does the Minister agree that the whole House should recognise the value of hedges as wildlife habitats? Will he confirm that grants are available for the planting and laying of hedgerows under the new farm and conservation grants scheme? What action is being taken to prevent the erosion of the soil in some areas?
    Mr. Ryder: I fully share my hon. Friend's views about hedgerows. As he knows, the farm and conservation grants scheme, which began on 20 Feburary, provides grants of up to 40 per cent. for the planting of hedges in lowland areas. I particularly urge farmers in the east midlands and in East Anglia, my own part of England, to make full use of the grants.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did the chairman raise with the Minister the whole question of the reorganisation of his Ministry? Is it true that discussions are going on as a result of which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might be linked to the Department of Industry? Alternatively, is it true that the Government might be considering setting up a whole new green Department based on a combination of briefs from various other Departments?
    Mr. Ryder: When I spoke to the chairman of the CPRE, Mr. David Astor, that matter was not on his agenda, but perhaps it may be next time.

    Nitrate Pollution
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to reduce levels of nitrate pollution caused by agricultural activities.
    Mr. MacGregor: I announced in March the Government's intention to designate a pilot sample of nitrate-sensitive areas, in which a range of agricultural measures could be tested. Since then, a consultation document has been issued setting out the Government's more detailed ideas and inviting comments on them.
    Mr. Hughes: When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to announce the set-aside in the nitrate-sensitive areas? Will he agree that the whole scheme that he has initiated is further proof that the Government care about good water quality and that we are in the lead in the European Community in trying to achieve that?
    Mr. MacGregor: Set-aside is a different scheme from the proposals for nitrate-sensitive areas on which we
    1116
    intend to embark. We are getting ahead with our proposals for nitrate-sensitive areas. I hope to have the areas which we are using as pilot samples in place for the harvest in 1990. Of course, we need to have the Water Bill through Parliament, and the National Rivers Authority set up, before we can proceed with our proposals for the nitrate-sensitive areas. The fact that we are getting ahead with our proposals before the decisions in the European Community on this matter must be a clear indication of the Government's leading role in dealing with those matters.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. McKay: From personal experience, what advice would the Prime Minister give to neighbours who do not get on too well?
    The Prime Minister: I am not experienced in such matters.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of a great many hon. Members that the principal member of her Government, the Lord Chancellor, is today being held to account by his Church for fulfillng his public duties? Does she agree that that is hardly the mark of a Church which would call itself Christian or tolerant?
    The Prime Minister: I have very great sympathy with my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us this month's excuse for the appalling trade figures?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, part of the reason for the trade figures is the higher investment that I understand he seeks.
    Mr. Budgen: is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some confusion on the Conservative Benches about the Government's economic policy? Will she state whether the recent increase in interest rates was to hold up the value of the pound or to restrict private credit and the money supply?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the recent increase in interest rates is to get the rate of inflation down. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find no con fusion on economic policy. The Chancellor and I find none. The only confusion that we find has arisen from the interview given on the BBC today by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he called for import controls and for us to stop treating the pound as if it were a sacred relic. That is against the Common Market, against GATT, against the pound and against common sense.
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that since the last general election the rate of inflation has doubled, the trade deficit has quadrupled and mortgage rates are going through the roof? If those are signs that the Prime Minister is doing well, what will happen if she does badly?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, to us the rate of inflation is unacceptably high, but to the Labour party it was unsustainably low. It is better than it could sustain for more than a few months. Our performance has given the highest standard of living ever known, the highest number of jobs and a rate of inflation infinitely below the 26 per cent. rate of the Labour party.
    Sir Julian Ridsdale: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Julian Ridsdale: In view of the turmoil in China can my right hon. Friend give some assurances to the people of Hong Kong as, in the present situation, there must be considerable anxiety among them?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's view and I believe that there must be very great concern in Hong Kong about events in China. My hon. Friend will recall the joint declaration we negotiated with China to guarantee that freedoms and the capital, economic policy, which Hong Kong enjoys, should continue for 50 years after 1997. I believe that it is very much in China's long-term interests to make that agreement work and to see Hong Kong remain stable and prosperous. I believe that that will be the case and we shall do everything possible to see that it is.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister been briefed on the contents of the book "Who framed Colin Wallace?"? Is she aware that it contains specific details and evidence of acts of treason by the security services and that it contains specific records, on the record, from former members of the armed forces and the Civil Service confirming those acts? What advice would she give to Members of the House who wish to pursue such allegations, when her own Ministers continue to be evasive whenever those issues are raised?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I am not aware of the particular allegations in the book referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I dealt fully with allegations of that kind in my statement to the House on 6 May 1987 and I have nothing further to add to that statement.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to plan a visit to Lisburn and North Down where she would find that a huge number of people who see the path away from sectarian politics as being Conservative party participation in elections there?
    The Prime Minister: I have been to Lisburn and I had a very warm welcome from all of the people there and I greatly enjoyed my visit. I shall not be able to get there very quickly, but I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Prime Minister please explain to the House how we can have a record deficit on the import of manufactures and, at the same time, barely reach the 1979 level of investment in the manufacturing industry? Will she explain to the House what has happened to the supply side miracle in the economy?
    The Prime Minister: The supply side miracle has given us the highest standard of living the country has ever known, the highest standard of business investment ever known and now, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be very glad to welcome, the highest level of investment in manufacturing industry in real terms.
    Mr. Goodlad: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Goodlad: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the police in Wolverhampton on their prompt and effective action in apprehending, earlier in the week, those who were dealing in crack? Will she reassure the House that she will give every support to those involved in making sure that that evil trade, which has brought so much misery and degradation to other parts of the world, is never allowed to take root here?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the police were entirely right to take firm action against drug dealers and that crack peddlers must know that they have no safe haven. I believe that the disturbances that followed the enforcement of the law at Heath Town on Tuesday night were absolutely disgraceful. I also believe that the police should be warmly commended on the action they took and on the way in which they restored order, quickly and effectively. I believe that, in doing so, they have the support of the overwhelming majority of the people of our country.
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Prime Minister believe that the threatened expulsion of diplomats and journalists threatens the improving good relations between Britain and the Soviet Union, which are most welcome to the overwhelming majority of people of both countries?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that we should refrain from taking action against people who are carrying out unacceptable activities in this country. We found those people in both the Soviet and the Czech embassies and we had to take action against them. The action had to be taken regardless

    1119
    of the effect upon our relations. The worst thing of all would have been to say that because we have better relations we can ignore all those unacceptable activities.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she has never suspended an interview on "The World at One" because she objected to the line of questioning?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that. I was absolutely appalled at what happened today. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman could never take his place at this Dispatch Box because he would object to the line of questioning.
    Mr. Kinnock: Try me.
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Morgan: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the economic problem of this country is no longer that we are suffering from overheating but that the radiator has now blown up into tiny fragments all over her?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker, but I note that official Labour policy would make things infinitely worse by wanting lower interest rates, lower exchange rates, higher public spending and, according to the shadow Chancellor, a less deflationary emphasis, all of which would lead to the sort of inflation we had when Labour was in power.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she has never been a member of CND but has consistently advocated multilateral disarmament? Does my right hon. Friend believe that this consistency is absolutely vital if one is to be taken seriously as a political leader?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that I have never been a member of the CND. I believe in sure and strong defence of liberty. We know from experience that conventional weapons are not enough to prevent war, because of the two world wars that we have had. We must continue to have the nuclear weapon if we are to have peace in Europe.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: We have been listening with interest in the course of the past two or three months to the Prime Minister's references to the ozone layer and green issues generally. Can she tell us whether she expects that hole in the ozone layer to be patched up by the use of market forces? Has she got in mind a man, a ladder, a bike and an enterprise allowance?
    The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman—I believe a grammar school boy—would have had the understanding to know that it is the success and profits of the private sector that have been sufficient to finance the excellent research of the Antarctic Survey and to provide even more money for the survey to discover the hole in the ozone layer, which formed the basis of the action which has been taken on it, and that also it is the success of the market sector which is very rapidly producing ozone-friendly products to stop the threat to the ozone layer.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Can I say to my right hon. Friend how much the people of Heath Town will welcome her reassurance this afternoon? I will personally deliver her message to the police tomorrow. Can I have her assurance that she will advise that those who are found guilty of the terrible offence of handling crack be dealt with severely?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Crack is a very great danger and we shall do everything possible to stop it coming into this country. I hope that the courts will take notice of what my hon. Friend has said. I believe that people want that offence dealt with by severe sentences.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister prepared to repeat today the Chancellor's Budget prediction of 5½ per cent. inflation by the end of the year?
    The Prime Minister: I am not going any further than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose handling of the economy has given everyone the highest standard of living and the highest standard of social services that they have ever known—[Interruption.] There is so much row from the Opposition because they cannot bear the facts to be told.
    Mr. Rhodes James: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech that she made at Perth when she expressed strong support for the threatened Glasgow university veterinary school? Is she aware that we in Cambridge have always strongly supported Glasgow veterinary school, as it has supported us? Can I assume that my right hon. Friend's support for Glasgow extends to Cambridge?
    The Prime Minister: I am very supportive of veterinary schools, which have a high standard of excellence. Glasgow, in addition, does a great deal of highly relevant research, and attracts much research from the private sector. I fully support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his attempt to save it, which I believe will be successful.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the first week after the spring Adjournment?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the spring Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 6 JUNE—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
Remaining stages of the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 7 JUNE—Opposition Day (12th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
Motions on the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) order and the Community Service Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order.
THURSDAY 8 JUNE—There will be a debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 9 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House as soon as possible to deal with poll tax rebates in Scotland, where the 56-day deadline for claiming poll tax rebates runs out tomorrow? Anyone in Scotland who applies for a poll tax rebate after tomorrow will not have it backdated to cover the whole year. Many thousands of Scottish people, who are recognised by the Government to be entitled to poll tax rebates because they are so badly off, have still not had the opportunity to apply. Therefore, it is vital that the Secretary of State comes to the House to extend the deadline. If that requires a change in the regulations, the Opposition will do everything they can to facilitate a speedy change to ensure that the badly off people in Scotland are not robbed of the rebates to which even this Government believes they are entitled.
When may we expect a debate on the Government's response to the Social Services Select Committee's report issued today, which urges the Secretary of State for Health to abandon his headlong rush to change the National Health Service? That all-party Committee is concerned and has serious fears about the stability of services and the continuity of patient care if the Secretary of State achieves his aim.
When can we expect a debate on the Government's response to the Griffiths report on care in the community; and, for that matter, when will the Government publish their response?
When are we to have a debate on the Green Papers on the reform of the legal profession?
When can we expect a debate on the proposal to substitute student loans for student grants? That is a matter of growing concern for many parents of students and would-be students who, in many cases, are the self-same parents who are growing more and more concerned about the rapid increases in mortgage payments, and the likely increases that are to come.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me five questions about the business for the first week after the spring Adjournment. First, he asked whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would make a statement about the Scottish community charge arrangements. I cannot give such an undertaking, although I will of course refer the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. and learned Friend. I understand, however, that the community charge arrangements are proceeding pretty well in Scotland, in spite of some not very helpful remarks by Opposition Members.
I think that it is a little premature to arrange a debate on the Social Services Committee report, which I believe was published this morning, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. I was interested to note that the Committee took evidence from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health yesterday afternoon, and seems to have compiled its report rather rapidly thereafter.
As I have said, I recognise that there is a good deal of interest in the Griffiths report, and also in the Wagner report. We are working on our own proposals, which we shall introduce in the near future. There will be no undue delay, but it is essential for us to reach the right answers when considering such an important subject. Any further debate will take place when we have announced our proposals.
I cannot promise an early debate on the Green Papers on law reform. The Lord Chancellor will announce the conclusions of his review later, and there will of course be time for debates on any proposals that are presented.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is having discussions with the financial institutions about the administration of the student loan scheme, and they are continuing to make progress. As I have said on many previous occasions, the time for debate will be when conclusions have been reached.
Mr. Julian Amery: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is to make a statement later this afternoon. Can my right hon. Friend give some assurance that before the summer recess we shall have an opportunity for a full debate on the situation in Northern Ireland? We shall have an opportunity this afternoon for some cross-examination, but that does not quite take the place of the assurance that I understood my right hon. Friend to have given me some months ago that we would have a full debate in due course.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I want to add to the assurance that I gave until we have heard my right hon. Friend's statement. I recognise the concern felt by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), and the matter is indeed suitable for debate, but I think it best to hear the statement first and then consider how to proceed.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: When can we have a full debate on sport to enable hon. Members to express their views on participation, sponsorship and the current anxieties about crowd safety and the exploits of ticket touts at sporting events? In view of the recent decision by the Scottish Rugby Union to allow its players to go to South Africa, will the Leader of the House join the

1123
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which yesterday condemned the decision after being told that for the vice-president of the Scottish Rugby Union to assert that the players are white, free and over 21 was an insult to the players, to the game and to Scotland?
Mr. Wakeham: Sport is clearly a suitable subject for debate in the House, but I cannot promise a debate in the near future. The question of ticket touts was raised in Monday's Adjournment debate. As for matters such as football safety, the Football Spectators Bill will have its Third Reading in the other place in the not too distant future, and there will be arrangements for it to be debated in this House after that.
As for the South African visit, I stand by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said about the Gleneagles agreement. We have given our views. In a free society people must make up their own minds, but the Government's view is quite clear.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend consider the need for a debate on the White Paper on information technology which, as he will recall, was produced in response to the Trade and Industry Committee's report and which has raised considerable concern in industry? A debate before the summer recess would be most helpful.
Mr. Wakeham: l agree. I wish I could find the time, but I cannot. Of course, the Opposition day debate recently on investing in the future was devoted largely to the subject and my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the IT White Paper. Of course, it is an important subject. 1 should like to find time for a debate, but I am not too hopeful for the immediate future.
Mr. John Morris: Since the Lord Chancellor has invited widespread consultation on his Green Papers before he reaches any conclusions, and since he has extended the time for the judges to give their views, would it not be wrong if the House, which is in charge of Supply for the Executive, did not have an opportunity of presenting its views to the Lord Chancellor before he reaches any conclusions?
Mr. Wakeham: It will, in the end, be for Parliament to decide if there are to be changes. I do not think it is wrong at all. However, I believe that hon. and learned Gentlemen who wish to make representations to the Lord Chancellor have plenty of opportunities to do so. I agree that a debate would be useful, but I cannot find the time at present.
Mr. Ian Paisley: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the majority population in Northern Ireland were not consulted about the Anglo-Irish Agreement when it was drawn up. Now, we have a review of the agreement. Is he telling the House that the representatives from Northern Ireland will not have the same right as any other person in the House to have a full discussion and to express their opinions on that review? For the first time, that review puts members of all the regiments of the British Army into the same position as the Ulster Defence Regiment where they cannot appear in the streets of Belfast or anywhere else in Northern Ireland without being accompanied by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The review also gives to the Dublin
1124
Government the power to nominate to the Mournes in Northern Ireland. Surely the Leader of the House should safeguard minority interests and say that we will have a full debate in the House as well as an opportunity of voting on the matter.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity during the review to give his views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because that would have been an important thing for him to have done.
I have not ruled out the question of debate. Indeed, when the matter was raised earlier, I said that it is a proper subject for debate and I would hope to be able to arrange one. It is a question of finding an appropriate time. The right thing now is to hear the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and decide how best to proceed.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Having regard to the uncertainty in the financial markets and on the Government Back Benches, would it not be right to have an urgent debate on the state of the economy as soon as we return from the Whitsun recess? Also, does the Leader of the House think that it is time the House was given an opportunity to discuss the Select Committee report on televising the proceedings in the House?
Mr. Wakeham: With regard to the point on televising the House, I hope to be able to make an announcement very soon as to when that debate will take place because it is needed as soon as we can find time for it.
I do not accept the proposition that it is necessary for there to be a debate on the economy at the present time. I believe that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they are not prepared to take any risks with inflation. I recognise that high interest rates are not desirable in themselves, but they are necessary if we are to bear down on inflation. I believe that that is the right policy.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that recently a proposition, drafted largely by British Rail, even if not presented by it, failed to secure approval in their Lordships' House largely because it had been hurried. Given the fact that British Rail is engaged on a proposition which involves noise parameters which have not yet been settled by the Department of the Environment, changing the costs by hundreds of millions of pounds, trying to create a parkway station in the middle of an area of particular landscape importance, and a whole range of other things—including the fact that the Kent county council has just employed a set of consultants—would my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to have a debate to try to prevent British Rail from bringing a half-baked proposal before the House next November rather than postponing it until it has really worked it through?
Mr. Wakeham: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and interest in the matter, but I do not believe that that allows me to support his proposition. It is not right for me to advise British Rail on its tactics as to how and when to bring a private Bill to the House. I do not believe that it would be wise or helpful for the House to debate the subject. British Rail has to decide what is right, and the House will then have an opportunity of dealing with it.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the defective laws affecting people who are knocked down and injured on our roads, in particular people such as my constituent, John Sweetman? He was a pedestrian who was knocked down by a bicycle. He lost an eye and his job and has never gone back to work. He received no compensation because the cyclist was uninsured and a man of straw. May we debate the suffering of ordinary people in cases such as that because they are extremely common?
Mr. Wakeham: That is a serious matter and I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman had to raise it in the House. I extend my sympathies to the person concerned. It is difficult to find time for a debate on the subject now, although I recognise that if there are shortcomings in the law they should be considered. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would try to initiate an Adjournment debate on the subject.
Sir Bernard Braine: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to early-day motion 827, which refers to a judgment in the Family Division of the High Court at Leeds?
[That this House notes the judgment of Mr. Justice Ward of the Family Division of the High Court, Leeds, on 14th April, that the doctors concerned with Baby 'C', a Ward of Court, should 'treat ( the ward) to die' and that it would not be necessary to feed the child either by intravenous fusions or nasal gastric regimes; notes that both these sections of the formal order were deleted in the Court of Appeal on Thursday 20th April; notes that medical evidence provided by the Official Solicitor was instrumental in guiding Mr. Justice Ward in his conclusions; and calls on the Law Officers to publish in full both the medical report from the Official Solicitor and the judgment of Mr. Justice Ward, deleting those sections which would breach the anonymity of the child, her family, and the doctors involved.]
The decision was that doctors concerned with baby C should treat the baby to die—in other words, medical attention should be withdrawn. The matter went to the appeal court but, because of the nature of the matter it is impossible for the House to ask questions about it; hence the early-day motion. Tragically, the baby died today.
This is a matter of grave public concern and an opportunity should be given to Parliament to debate the issue. I realise that it cannot be debated next week, but will my right hon. Friend, who I know cares deeply about such things, consider the matter, consult the Ministers concerned and arrange for a debate at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my right hon. Friend has raised a serious matter about which he is greatly concerned. I share his concern and I shall certainly accept his suggestion to discuss it with my right hon. Friends to see whether there is anything that can be done. Baby C, who has tragically died, was a ward of court. The proceedings were held in private and, under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, any person who publishes material about the case other than that authorised by the court would be guilty of contempt of court. Therefore, it would be improper for the Law Officers to seek to circumvent that statutory provision. Nevertheless, there are principles and issues involved and it may be possible to have a debate if we can find the right formula.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I am not asking the Leader of the House for a statement yet, but may we have some highly publicised Government action on the position of the Kurdish refugees? The Government should urge the Turkish authorities to stop their persecution of the Kurdish people, they should release the Kurdish refugees they have in detention and they should provide financial aid to hard-pressed local authorities, particularly in east London, which are acting humanely in this matter.
Mr. Wakeham: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has an Adjournment debate tomorrow which will provide an opportunity for a Minister to make a considered comment.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging an urgent debate on what appears to be the crass decision of the Department of Transport to postpone the building of the north Birmingham orbital road, despite six years of planning and the payment of millions of pounds in compensation and blight payments? We need to debate the prospect of it being put out to tender or finding a new alternative route, subject to the suggestions of contractors or the people prepared to pay for it. It has vital effects on the economy of the west midlands, from the north to the south. It seems to be a crass decision which was taken without any consultation with the Members of Parliament affected by it.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot comment on the road concerned or on the details because I do not have the details here. The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the substantial increase in the road building programme was widely welcomed in all parts of the House. I shall certainly refer the matter to the Minister concerned.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Leader of the House does not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The Government boasted that the rebate was one of the advantages of the new community charge and tomorrow, Friday, is the last day on which those who are entitled to a rebate can apply, otherwise they will be disallowed this benefit. The Leader of the House must take this matter much more seriously. A campaign in Scotland by the SNP suggested that people should either not pay the tax or should flood the registration officer with requests for rebates whether or not they were entitled to them. People are genuinely in need of knowledge on whether they are entitled to the rebate. We need an extension of the time limit, and we need it now.
Mr. Wakeham: I entirely reject the charge that I have not taken this matter seriously. I told the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that I would refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is about as much as I can do from the Dispatch Box at the moment. The Opposition have responsibilities in this matter. The other day the hon. Gentleman complained about the number of people who had not registered, and the Opposition continually refer to the community charge as the poll tax. No wonder some people are misled.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The trade figures published this morning show a further sharp deterioration in trade with the Common Market as opposed to the rest of the world. For example, exports to other developed countries went up by 8 per cent. and exports to the EEC have gone up by only 1 per cent. As this follows a year in which the deficit was more than £13 billion, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on what is proving to be the national disaster of our appalling and consistently worsening trade with the EEC? As that affects jobs and the Government's economic policies, may we have a full day's debate simply to find out why our trade with the Common Market is such a dreadful disaster? For every £3 of goods that come in, £2 of goods go out, whereas our trade with the rest of the world seems in some respects to be steadily improving. May we have a debate on this big issue?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the balance of trade is a perfectly proper subject for debate, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the immediate future because there is a great deal of other business that I have to get through.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on poll tax registration? That would allow our constituents in England and Wales to be told that it is perfectly lawful for them to return unsigned registration forms and to ask legitimate questions. It would also allow Ministers to explain why overseas students are liable for poll tax while American service personnel are exempt. It would draw attention to the discretion of poll tax officers, because in Bradford the poll tax officer is proposing to exempt persons from poll tax if they are outside the United Kingdom for more than a year. However, they lose entitlement to social security if they are outside the United Kingdom for more than eight weeks.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman does not carry much conviction when he tries to raise questions concerning his constituents and continually refers to the community charge as the poll tax.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that dog lovers, owners and breeders all over the country are banding together and writing to hon. Members hoping that we will have a debate on the question of dog registration and its many benefits? What are the prospects for those people of such a debate being held?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern, and I have had many letters on the subject. The Government do not believe that implementing section 37 would assist in the matter. I regret to say that I cannot see the opportunity for a debate on the subject in the near future.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: When will there be the promised debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on toxic waste and on the Government's inadequate response to it? Has not the need for such a debate been strengthened by the report of a Committee of another place underlining many of the concerns that the Environment Select Committee expressed?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I cannot promise him a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: When does my right hon. Friend expect to announce his long-awaited reforms of the unsatisfactory methods by which the House scrutinises EEC legislation? Is he aware that in the early hours of this morning the House reached an all-lime low in the saga of inadequate scrutiny when right hon. and hon. Members were invited to give their views on an EEC document on a "take note" motion, only to find that the motion had been pre-empted by a Government announcement earlier in the day to the effect that they accepted everything for which the EEC document asked? My right hon. Friend must surely see the ludicrous absurdity of the House being asked to spend its precious time offering its views on an EEC document when nothing said in the debate could possibly influence either the EEC or the Government.
Mr. Wakeham: There are two parts to my hon. Friend's question—a general part and a specific part. I was present last night, and I heard the points of order.
In EEC scrutiny debates, it is far from unusual for the Government's views to be known in advance In the particular case in question, we feel that we are now able to support the Commission's proposal and decided that that view should be publicly known in advance of the debate. To have done otherwise would have been to mislead the House.
However, I recognise that there is concern about the way in which EC documents are scrutinised by the House. It is not satisfactory, but it is not for me to announce the way in which matters will be improved. The Select Committee on Procedure is considering the matter and I am having discussions with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. I shall also want to have discussions with the Opposition. We must reach a general consensus as to the best way forward. I share my hon. Friend's view that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House read the 15 or so early-day motions that I have tabled calling on Mr. Tiny Rowland to divest himself of his interests in The Observer? Is it not clear that Mr. Rowland is abusing his position by using journalists and that newspaper's editor to secure his commercial ends?
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Where is the evidence?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not absolutely clear that the independent directors of The Observer are failing in the duties that were placed upon them when Mr. Rowland was allowed to take over the newspaper?
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Where is the evidence?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not time that those directors either resigned or did their job properly? May the House have a debate so that those matters can be properly discussed in Parliament?
Mr. Wakeham: I have taken a cursory glance at some of the hon. Gentleman's early-day motions but cannot say that I have read them in great detail. However, I can make a general comment. The tradition of press freedom in this country means that newspaper editors are free to publish what they wish, provided that they observe the criminal and the civil law. Where there is doubt about the accuracy or fairness of their reporting, complaints should be made to the Press Council, which is responsible for investigating such matters.
Mr. Michael Latham: In a week in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary had very constructive discussions with the Prime Minister of Israel, and in view of the fact that Ministers have met the Palestine Liberation Organisation leader, Yasser Arafat, is it not high time that the House had a proper debate on the problems of the middle east and the Arab-Israel conflict?
Mr. Wakeham: A number of very important foreign affairs subjects, of which that to which my hon. Friend refers is one, should be the subject of debates, but, as I have said at this Dispatch Box in recent weeks, we have a particularly heavy programme and at this time of the year it is difficult to find time for debates. Nevertheless, I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and will do my very best.
Mr. David Winnick: When the House returns from the recess, will there be a statement on the law relating to defamation, bearing in mind the libel damages of £600,000 that were awarded yesterday? Is not that a matter of some importance? Although we want people to utilise the law fully if they are libelled, should we not also bear in mind that two of the women attacked by Sutcliffe but who fortunately survived have yet to be paid a penny of the compensation of £10,000 and £8,000 that they were awarded? Is it likely that Mrs. Sutcliffe, although she was in no way responsible for her husband's crimes, will pay out to those two women and to the relatives of the women who were murdered?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be quite inappropriate to comment on any particular case, but I am aware that there has been criticism recently of a number of aspects of the law of defamation, including the size of some libel awards. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is to consider proposals for reform, taking all issues into account. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Home Office has already announced that an inquiry is to be established into privacy and related matters, and that could affect this consideration.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) as hon. Members on both sides of the House are receiving vast numbers of letters from constituents about dog registration? I should like us to debate the matter for a different reason from that given by my hon. Friend—to highlight the disgraceful advertising campaign by the RSPCA in which it accuses the Government of causing a larger number of dogs to be destroyed by removing the dog licence. Its annual report this year says that the number of dogs which have had to be destroyed has reduced since the dog licence was abolished. That needs to be highlighted.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly. As I said, I cannot find time for a debate on this subject in Government time, but perhaps my hon. Friend will consider applying to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Leader of the House aware of the collapse of the electoral register by more than 4 per cent. in 17 constituencies,
1130
including that of Finchley? Should not the House have a discussion about the serious state of the electoral register? It is a matter of great democratic and constitutional concern, and not to have such a debate would be to intimate that the House did not care one iota about the democratic procedures of the country.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. I realise that he has raised a perfectly proper matter for discussion. I cannot find time for it immediately, but as his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench have not chosen a subject for debate in the first week back after the spring Adjournment perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask them whether they might like to discuss this subject.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious environmental pollution problem in the city of Southampton? The ship Moby Dick, crewed by Greenpeace, has been blockading what is known as the "sludge ship" which takes the sewerage of Southampton out into mid-channel and dumps it. In 1989 we should not be dumping all the sewerage from a city the size of Southampton into the channel. The licences issued by MAFF should be brought before the House and scrutinised to find out just how much pollution of the sea is taking place. Would not a debate clear up some of those points?
Mr. Wakeham: A debate might clear up some of those points. I hope to be sailing my boat somewhere in that area during the spring Adjournment next week, if the weather stays fine, and I might have more knowledge when I return.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House look into a problem that has arisen concerning lobbyists coming to the House? I understand that the Grand Committee Room has been used by an inquiry for some months, so no public lobbyists will be able to use it to meet Members of Parliament. I understand that other rooms cannot be made available for lobbyists to meet Members of Parliament. On 22 June a very large pensioners' lobby will be coming here.
Will the Leader of the House look into the problem and propose lifting the rule for other Committee Rooms so that lobbyists can meet Members of Parliament, or will he make arrangements for Westminster Hall to be made available so that the pensioners can meet Members of Parliament to put their perfectly legitimate claims for a decent old-age pension for all?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any undertaking that something can be done because there are difficulties, but I can certainly give him the clear undertaking that I shall look into the matter to find out what can be done and will write to him.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will allow the House to have an urgent debate on the cultural vandalism of the BBC in its proposal to tamper with the ball-by-ball commentary on Test Match Special? Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that cricket, cathedrals, "Land of Hope and Glory", an enduring distrust of foreigners and the continuing premiership of my right hon. Friend the Prime

1131
Minister define classically the best of England, and it would be a disaster and a catastrophe of the first order if any of these were damaged or destroyed in any way?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not have a Test score later than lunchtime, but I believe that it was 132 for three at lunchtime today. I am interested to know what has happened since then. If it is not irresponsible of me, I share the sentiments of my hon. Friend, but it is for the BBC to decide what sporting events to cover and the extent of that coverage. I understand that the BBC aims to continue providing as much uninterrupted ball-by-ball coverage as possible. For the majority of the time, the BBC sees no reason why Test Match Special should differ from its persent form.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I remind the Leader of the House that, although we have had Adjournment debates on the Roman baths at Huggin hill and the Rose theatre, there remains in the House considerable concern that a great deal of damage is being done to Britain's archaeological heritage by the activities of property developers and that we will not safeguard our heritage by one-off campaigns that occur on sites within easy reach of Fleet street and Westminster? May we have an urgent and early debate on the preservation of our archaeological heritage and the clear loopholes in present legislation?
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that the Government and the developers moved speedily and effectively to deal with recent cases. By their very nature, one cannot always anticipate when such matters will arise, but I agree that the subject is suitable for debate. It is difficult for me to make time for a debate in the immediate future, but I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
Mr. Gary Waller: It would obviously be improper for my right hon. Friend to comment on any one case of libel, even one as significant as the Sutcliffe case about which so many members of the public are concerned, but is he aware that it is now 14 years since the Faulks committee on defamation reported, yet none of its recommendations has been implemented by any Government, although several of them are relevant to recent cases? Does he agree that it might be appropriate for the House to have a debate on that matter so that the views of right hon. and hon. Members could be taken into account by the committee reviewing the press, privacy and similar matters that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced?
Mr. Wakeham: It is clear from the way in which he phrased his question that my hon. Friend is aware that he has raised a difficult subject on which it is not easy to find a solution. The right approach is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to consider these matters in the way that he has suggested, but if any right hon. or hon. Member has any suggestions I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be only too pleased to receive them.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Leader of the House agree that the time is now right for the House to debate the appointment of regulators? The matter has been highlighted this week by the appointment of Professor Littlechild as regulator-designate of the electricity industry, the appointment last month of Ian Byatt as regulator-designate of the water industry, and just before Christmas the appointment of Adam Peat as the new director, with regulatory functions, of the Housing Corporation for Wales.
It is notable that those three appointments are of civil servants, temporary or permanent, who were deeply involved in writing the legislation. That raises two important constitutional issues which need to be thought about seriously by the Leader of the House and by the House as a whole. Those appointments mean one of two things: either only those who are engaged in writing the legislation understand its functions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Business questions should be about future debates.
Mr. Morgan: The other point that we should debate is whether the Government approve of the idea of civil servants writing £40,000 or £50,000 a year jobs for themselves.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand the whole process. Parliament is considering the legislation that requires the regulators to be appointed. The gentlemen that the hon. Gentleman mentioned seem eminently suitable for the jobs. I see no cause for a debate.
Mr. Greg Knight: May we have an early debate on the subjects of disarmament and defence so that hon. Members of the soft Left wing, the hard Left wing and the provisional wing of the Labour party can place their views on record and the House can discover what Labour's defence policy really is?
Mr. Wakeham: The debate on Thursday 8 June might be an opportunity to start on that litany of subjects.

Anglo-Irish Conference (Review)
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the review of the working of the Intergovernmental conference set up under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The review was completed at the meeting of the conference in Belfast yesterday and copies of the report have been placed in the Library. Also in the Library are copies of a paper setting out developments since the signing of the agreement. The review has been a very worthwhile opportunity to take stock of the working of the conference and I am grateful to all those who submitted views on this subject.
Both Governments reaffirmed in the report their full commitment to all the provisions of the agreement and to its shared understandings and purposes. The report deals with the work and achievements of the conference under each article of the agreement. In the conclusions of the report, the two Governments agree that the conference, supported by the secretariat, has proved its value in the past three years and that, while requiring no fundamental change at present, its role could, nevertheless, be developed and enhanced in a number of ways.
If in future it were to appear that the objectives of the agreement could be more effectively served by changes in the scope and nature of the working of the conference, consistent with the basic provisions and spirit of the agreement, the two Governments would be ready in principle to consider such changes.
What the report and the record of developments since the agreement was signed show is that neither the agreement nor the operation of the conference is a threat to either tradition in Northern Ireland. On the contrary, they have provided a framework that respects the essential interests of both sides of the community and their right to pursue their aspirations by peaceful means. They facilitate co-operation in the fight against terrorism and set out to create the conditions in which the whole community can live together in peace.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement this afternoon. My party gives a warm welcome to the declaration made yesterday. We had only one regret about the declaration and that was the absence of the Tánaiste, the Foreign Secretary of the Republic. I am sure that the whole House hopes that he has a speedy and successful recovery from his recent operation.
In many ways, the declaration has mirrored the opinions of the Labour party and the submission we made to the Government on it. However, the greatest achievement of the agreement has been its survival, despite all the pressures and controversy to which it has been subjected. As the review document clearly points out, the agreement has assisted the development of cross-border security, which is very important, and has resulted in a far more mature and constructive relationship between the British and Irish Governments. It has provided the forum for the institutionalisation of disagreements and has furnished a mechanism for the handling of disputes.
When we look at the detail of the review, we are pleased that the two Governments have accepted so many of our suggestions. I welcome the recognition of the need for
1134
greater openness about the working of the agreement, as well as the decision to hold regular meetings of the conference. The crisis management atmosphere has been detrimental to the agreement.
In terms of the legal aspects of the review, we welcome the fact that the review recognises the need to bring the Law Officers into the agreement process. We can do without the disputes between the Law Officers which have in the past marred Anglo-Irish relations. Furthermore, we note that efforts are to be made to make use of the extra-territorial legislation and, in addition, that the proposals for the harmonisation of the criminal law between the two countries are to be furthered.
There are two other areas of policy that we described in our submission as relevant and important. We .are glad that the two Governments have accepted our recommendation that more effort should be made to use the agreement to deal with cross-border co-operation in social and economic matters. We are especially impressed that the implications of 1992 for the relationship between the two parts of Ireland appear to have been recognised by the two Governments. We are certain that there can be future progress in that area.
I also welcome the publication of the document "Developments since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement", although some sections of that document tend to over-egg the pudding and others are somewhat contentious. However, it is good that the Government have attempted to provide information that will assist in drawing up a realistic assessment of the agreement.
The Labour party supports the conclusions of the review and, in particular, paragraphs 27 to 30. Paragraph 29 states:
"If in the future it were to appear that the objectives of the Agreement could be more effectively served by changes in the scope and nature of the working of the Conference, consistent with the basic provisions and spirit of the Agreement, the two Governments would be ready in principle to consider such changes."
That shows a degree of flexibility which we wholeheartedly endorse.
Will the Secretary of State agree with us that the prime objective in the next phase of the agreement is to bring all the constitutional parties in from the cold, not betraying their principles, their traditions or their communities, but working for the good of the Province as a whole?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the welcome he gave the statement and especially for the welcome he gave to the paper we produced on developments since the signing of the agreement. It is helpful to remind the House and the wider public of a number of events which have taken place since the agreement was signed and which show, not spectacular developments in particular directions, but the steady and valuable progress made in developing a closer understanding and relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on the issues in Northern Ireland. Anybody who considers these matters sensibly—and this is one matter on which I am sure that I command the support of the whole House—knows that there has to be a relationship between Dublin, Belfast and London. There are issues of manifest benefit that can be better resolved by discussion together. The lesson of the review is that the work of the conference started perhaps with a bit of crisis management, but is now steadying down to worthwhile,

1135
sensible progress in a number of important areas and that can only be of benefit to relations within Northern Ireland and to people within the whole island of Ireland.
At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North invited me to bring people in from the cold. My door is open so that people can come in from the cold. If people are determined to stay out in the cold, I will not arrest them and compel them to come through the door. In the end, they have to decide whether they want to do that. I say as genuinely as I can from the Dispatch Box that if people wish to come, the welcome is there.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The majority population of Northern Ireland were not consulted when the Anglo-Irish Agreement came forth and when it was signed. They had no opportunity at that time to say anything about its conditions because they were kept secret. However, the minority population, led by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), had full access to all that was going on, which was acknowledged by the Secretary of State at that time, who is now the Home Secretary. The Unionists were left out in the cold.
Then we had the agreement. When it was signed the hon. Member for Foyle told the Government to face down the Unionist population. At the time, the Unionists were told that they would not be consulted and to carry on as they had been doing. There was then an inquiry into the agreement. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who was then Labour's deputy spokesman on Northern Ireland and who is in the House now, attended that session and admitted that in his opinion the status of Northern Ireland had been changed through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. When we look at the review—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Although I appreciate the importance of this statement to the hon. Gentleman, will he please bear in mind that he should ask the Secretary of State a question?
Rev. Ian Paisley: When we are having a statement in the House, Mr. Speaker, I must put the background to my question—[Interruption.] If I do not have the freedom to do that—[Interruption.] In your hearing, Mr. Speaker, I have already pressed that this House—[Interruption.]
Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) would do better to listen.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like a full-scale debate in the House on this matter. However, that has not been forthcoming from the Leader of the House or from the Secretary of State who could have said in his statement today, "We will give a full debate" because the only place that the view of the majority of Northern Ireland's representatives can be heard is in this House.
It is completely wrong of the Secretary of State to say that the views of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself were not put to him forthrightly because he knows the Unionist view over a period of nine months. He knows exactly where we stand on this issue. Surely this House should have an opportunity of having a full debate on this issue.
The Secretary of State is saying that the agreement hurts nobody, that it is even-handed and that it will bring about peace, stability and reconciliation. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), speaking for the Labour party, said that cross-border security has been improved. I wonder
1136
whether they would like to visit the homes of two senior police officers and ask their widows whether they think that it has been improved.
The House needs to face the fact that the Ulster question will not go away and that the way in which we should debate it is in an open debate in the House, not with a mere statement. There are things in the statement that radically change some of those democratic rights that are left. Matters such as appointments to boards will be tinkered with. If the Secretary of State is going to be forthcoming to the majority, let him say today, "Yes, we will have a debate on this issue in the House."
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman began his intervention, or question, with a travesty of the truth. He knows perfectly well that the first thing that I did when I went in to my office at Stormont as the new Secretary of State was to sit down and, in my own hand, write him a letter before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was even signed inviting him to talk to me on behalf of his party and the people that he represents. I issued the same invitation to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)—but the hon. Gentleman never came. He is now saying that people were not consulted, but he bears a heavy responsibility for the fact that the people whom he represents did not have a chance for their voices to be heard. We also know that the hon. Gentleman did exactly the same thing when we reached the review period. It is not good enough for him to stand up in the House asking why people were not consulted when he represents one of the two parties that refused to give any views on this review of the agreement.
Having put that on the record, I genuinely want to see the ways in which progress can be made. If I may say so, it is more likely to be made by the sort of approach that the hon. Gentleman has now adopted than by him sending me the sort of letter that he sent yesterday, which is published in the Newsletter today. If he is interested, and if it was with his agreement, I would ask for permission to publish it in the Official Report so that the House could see what is not the right approach, what is the negative approach, of abuse and vituperation in Northern Ireland politics when what I looked for from him—I take encouragement from his remarks—is a constructive and sensible discussion on important matters.
The matters concerning the administration and government of the Province can be debated in the House, although that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I made it clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that my door is open. If the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is genuine in what he has just said, I am happy to sit down with him to talk about arrangements for administration and government within Northern Ireland which, as he knows, he can do outside the agreement. However, if he sits in his trench and bellows "Not an inch" and "No surrender", what happened to him in the local government elections will continue to happen, because more sensible voices will prevail.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has referred to a document which I should like to be printed in full. I should like the House to read it and to see that it is not the document that the Secretary of State has painted to the House. By all means, print the document.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would not be appropriate to have the document printed in the Official Report. Perhaps the best course would be to have it placed in the Library.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I congratulate the Secretary of State on reaching agreement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland which, in his own words, shows the full commitment of both Governments to the genuine implementation and use of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and Secretariat for the benefit of all the people of Ireland, North and South, and for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland, be they Protestant, Catholic, Unionist or Nationalist. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree—indeed, he has stated this—that nothing in the agreement is detrimental to the rights and the duties of any citizen in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland.
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement on behalf of both Governments that there is an attempt to expand the scope and the timetabling of the deliberations. While it is important that security is always the number one issue on the agenda, because of the unfortunate and damaging terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, nonetheless, the Anglo-Irish Agreement deliberations have been reactive rather than proactive. I hope that in the ensuing meetings of the Secretariat there will be a structured agenda and a structured timetable when dealing with, say, the economic issues that would be beneficial to both communities, in both Northern and southern Ireland. I welcome the intent that appeared to exist in the Secretary of State's statement that that would be the norm in the future.
As we head towards 1992, it is only appropriate that two neighbouring Governments evolve a harmonisation and compatibility such as is envisaged for all Europe. Why can it not be envisaged for the small nation of the island of Ireland?
In response to the Secretary of State's remarks to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I reaffirm and agree with the Secretary of State when he says that opportunities were available to every party and to people of no party in Northern Ireland to make representations on this matter. The hon. Member for Antrim, North stated that my party leader and, presumably, myself had had some privileged access prior to the signing of the agreement. We consulted with the British Government and with the Irish Government. We put our views on both tables. We would have been fools not to, prior to any international agreement being signed. That opportunity was available to everybody on the island of Ireland, and in the British Isles.
When the hon. Member for Antrim, North speaks of the majority in Northern Ireland, he is really speaking for a very small minority of the people of the United Kingdom and a very small minority of the people of Ireland in relation to his campaign of opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
While there have been hiccups in the relationship between the two Governments over the past three years, the 27 meetings of the Secretariat must be recognised as having done away with the previous negative diplomacy and shouting across the Irish sea. The meetings have had a positive result. The opposition of the Unionist fraternity to the agreement got its answer in the local government poll last week. To say that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is an obstacle to political and economic movement in Northern Ireland is nonsense. The very parties that created the
1138
obstacle cannot get over the hurdle, so it is a self-imposed obstacle. I encourage the Secretary of State to expand the work of the agreement in such a way that not only the security but the economic and social welfare of all the people of Ireland may be enhanced and improved.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for his constituents and obviously is keenly concerned about the interests of the Nationalist community. Some people believe that addressing the concerns, and perhaps the grievances and disaffections, of the minority community is somehow to the disadvantage of the majority community. It is abundantly to the advantage of the majority community within the Province that there should be good relations between both communities. It is tragic that some political leaders in the Province fail to recognise that.
We have sought through discussion to establish a constructive relationship with the Irish Government. From the position in which I sit, I can see the benefits which can flow from that. There are manifold economic benefits, not least with the approach of 1992. I appreciate the constructive relationship that we have with the Irish Government, which owes much to the outstanding leadership of the Tánaiste, Mr. Brian Lenihan. I know that the whole House will share the hope, expressed in the communiqué, that his recent operation in the United States will be a success and that he will be restored to good health.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have allowed discretion to the two hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies for reasons that I hope the House fully understands. We should now get back to asking questions of the Secretary of State on the statement that he has just made.
Mr. Ian Gow: How carefully did my right hon. Friend consider the alternative to the present agreement that was sent to him on 28 September last year on behalf of some of my hon. Friends and myself? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest single factor in prolonging the tragedy of Northern Ireland is uncertainty about the constitutional future of the Province and that that uncertainty has been increased, rather than diminished, by the Anglo-Irish Agreement in its present form? How is it that my right hon. Friend is in favour of legislative devolution for Northern Ireland but is opposed to legislative devolution for Scotland on the ground that in Scotland it would injure the Union?
Mr. King: I think that my hon. Friend knows well that this was not a review of the agreement but a review of the workings of the conference. The agreement has been signed and is in place. That is not in dispute.
I regret profoundly my hon. Friend's comment about spreading doubt and uncertainty about the Union. He knows my position on that. He knows of my support for article 1, which has been signed and is supported by the Irish Government. It states that there should be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the agreement of the majority. That is an absolutely clear and firm understanding, expressed and signed by two sovereign Governments, the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government. It has been lodged with the United

1139
Nations as an international treaty. There is no uncertainty about that. I hope that we all stand firmly in support of that.
On the latter point that my hon. Friend made, I do not want to rehearse the history of Northern Ireland, but my hon. Friend knows that there is a difference between the background of Northern Ireland and Scotland in that Northern Ireland had the Stormont Parliament while Scotland did not have a parliament. We need to think seriously about the most appropriate way to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have a greater say in and greater responsibility for the administration of their own affairs. I have made it clear that I am open to discussions on the most appropriate forum for that. If we are to make progress, we need to get discussions going with the people who might have responsibility for the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I associate myself with the expressions of goodwill towards the early recovery of Mr. Lenihan. I also take the opportunity to say to the right hon. Gentleman how much we on these Benches have admired the courage, determination and painstaking care with which he has assured the survival of the agreement. Those who seek peace in Northern Ireland are greatly in his debt and the debt of those in the South who have worked with him. His statement and the common statement that he made with representatives of the Government of the Republic have identified, rightly, that nothing in the agreement presents a threat to either tradition in Northern Ireland. That is seen by the Government as important, not in terms of the last dot and comma of the agreement but of its basic principles and spirit. The Government clearly see the agreement as not the last but the first step in the process.
In the light of those facts, does the Secretary of State agree that those who seek peace and the best interests of Ireland on both sides of the border would be better advised to develop and build on the agreement rather than seek to destroy it?
Mr. King: I appreciate very much the right hon. Gentleman's opening words and his general comments. I agree profoundly with his last remark about the agreement not being a threat to either tradition. The only threat to those traditions in recent years has come from some of the methods of opposition and some of the behaviour that has appalled many people in Great Britain and many hon. Members whose belief in the Union is that people should play their part in the Parliament of the Union. Those hon. Members were concerned about the unwillingness of some people to continue on constitutional routes. I hope that people will recognise that the agreement is not a threat and that it can bring benefits. They should look at the positive side. We owe that to the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that real benefits can flow from that recognition.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend is only too well aware of the grave difficulties in British-Irish relationships. Potentially horrendous difficulties must reach his desk every day, involving cross-border security, Libyan arms, extradition, Gibraltar and all the rest of it; I do not need to list them all. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in his difficult job, which, if I may say so, he does so well, the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been of great assistance to him?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the least valid comments that is made about the agreement is that security has got worse as a result of the agreement. People who perpetuate that falsehood fail to recognise that some time ago, probably about 1983, plans were laid and preparations were made for the shipment of substantial quantities of Libyan arms, equipment and explosives, which were starting to arrive in Ireland before the agreement was signed. We are facing a determined and vicious campaign which, to put it bluntly, was intended to be the campaign to end all campaigns and to force victory for the IRA. That campaign is being resisted by the courage and determination of the security forces and by the resolution of all the people of Northern Ireland who are standing bravely against it. We are aided by the close support and co-operation of the Irish Government, the Garda Siochana and the Irish army. I should not like to face that serious campaign without the co-operation that has resulted in a series of arms finds and in the close working relationship that now exists. That is the reality of the security matter, and that is the reality of one of the benefits that have flowed from the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is there a danger that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is becoming an aim in itself? Its initial worthwhile provisions to end terrorism and extend democracy, especially in the Province, are not being pursued with sufficient vigour. Although there are great problems in controlling terrorism, democracy could be acted upon more quickly. A democratic devolved Government with a Bill of Rights to protect civil liberties should be the result of the agreement or of alternative discussions if the Anglo-Irish Agreement cannot deliver.
Mr. King: I hope to see a more constructive approach in political matters. There are some signs that, after the local government elections that have just taken place, that is increasingly the view of more and more people in Northern Ireland. Although they certainly wish to protect and defend their own respectable traditions and values, they look for dialogue and a constructive way forward, and not the hostility, hatred and distrust that some people still try to engender.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State inform the House whether, during the review of the workings of the conference on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he considered the heady days of late 1985, when claims were made in the House that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would produce peace, stability and reconciliation? In his analysis of the Anglo-Irish Agreement over the three-year period, did he conclude that the increase in violence, political and economic instability, and the divisions within Northern Ireland demonstrate that the policy has not been a success? Will he admit that all the talk of the IRA's plans being set in 1983 was known to him when he claimed that things would get better under the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
Will the Secretary of State please acknowledge that all hon. Members want Northern Ireland to move towards peace, stability and conciliation? Some of us at least believe that this is not the means to do it and that there is a better way. Will the Secretary of State please inform the House that he is not closing his mind to alternative means of bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland and that there can be other proposals to get peace, stability and reconciliation? Does he recognise that the vast majority of

1141
people in Northern Ireland still reject the Anglo-Irish Agreement and still refuse to accept it as the basis of good government for the Province?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's last sentence yet again confirms his total misunderstanding of the basis of the agreement. It is not a basis of government in Northern Ireland. The responsibility of government in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the office that I have the honour to hold. In discharging that responsibility, I am aided by several contributions. I would have hoped to have more contributions from some of the elected politicians and representatives from the Province. I am aided also by the Anglo-Irish Agreement Conference, in which the Irish Government put forward to me views and proposals on certain matters. We co-operate on some economic and social activities and security matters as well. The hon. Gentleman's last sentence is precisely the misunderstanding that some have sought to perpetuate—it totally misleads the people that listen to it—as the true nature of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The hon. Gentleman talked about economic instability. I am proud of the improvements in the Northern Ireland economy that we have seen over the past three years. They have been largely as a result of the improvement in the United Kingdom economy. There has been a substantial fall in unemployment and a significant increase in industrial investment. I welcome that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does, too. Our approach is to seek a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will have listened to my statement and heard me say that if, in future, it appears that the objectives of the agreement can be more effectively served by changes in scope and nature, the two Governments will be ready in principle to consider such things. I hope and believe that the hon. Gentleman understands the significance of that statement. In the light of my opening comment and my last comment, putting the nature of the agreement into its true context and making it quite clear that the actual government of Northern Ireland is a separate matter, I hope that he will feel able constructively to discuss any ideas that he might wish to put forward.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not the case that, whatever they may have said when in opposition, successive Governments in the Irish Republic have supported the agreement? Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his task has been made much easier by the support that he has received from both sides of the House since the agreement was signed? One hopes that, if a Labour Government were responsible for the agreement, we would have got the same support from what would have been the Tory Opposition.
Does the Secretary of State agree that far more substantial improvements in housing and employment would do much to undermine terrorism? That is probably why the Provisional IRA is so opposed to the economic progress that we would like to see in Northern Ireland.
Mr. King: It is certainly true that the Provisionals are opposed to much of the economic improvement. It is true also that they are the bitterest opponents of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the developing co-operation
1142
between our two countries. There is no question about that. We know why they are so frightened. I have had support from both sides of the House of Commons for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has been in place for about three and a half years. Anybody who knows what has happened in housing and the economy in trying to encourage more jobs in Northern Ireland knows that sensible co-operation in tackling other social problems will also help to improve the situation in the Province.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will call those hon. Members who have been standing, but, in view of the business before the House today, I ask them to keep their questions brief.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there have been many positive achievements by the conference? I refer to article 10 of the agreement and the success of the international fund for Ireland, thanks to the generosity and understanding of the United States, New Zealand, Canada and the European Community. Does he agree that economic co-operation leads to economic confidence, which leads to economic prosperity, which benefits all people north and south of the border, and brings peace with it?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the international fund. Although we very much appreciate the contributions of Canada, New Zealand and the European Community, obviously the major contribution has come from the United States. It is a remarkably fine gesture as a result of the close relationship between the United States and the island of Ireland. That gesture of good will and support is being used in increasingly constructive ways to help in many matters within Northern Ireland, the border counties and the Republic.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most notable achievements of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been the greater emphasis on fair employment and education? Both matters deal with people. The reduction of tension between people of different traditions has played a notable part in ensuring not only that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be successful but that there will be a much greater chance of peace in the community of Northern Ireland.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that matter. In particular, successive Governments have been determined to tackle discrimination, whether in housing or in jobs—topical as the subject is, as the House is about to complete the last stages of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. That development, allied with what I hope will be a continuing improvement in the number of jobs available, gives us the best chance now not only of more jobs but of equality of opportunity in the availability of those jobs.
Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I was one of those who voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement? I now feel, having studied the document "Developments since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement" regarding the working of the conference, that it must be acknowledged that there have been considerable beneficial developments from the Intergovernmental Conference.

1143
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement need not be any reason why politicians should not accept the invitation which he has proffered, today and on previous occasions, to come before him with constructive alternative proposals?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and for the time he has taken to study the report on developments, which I have made available to the House. I can certainly confirm what he says. If people wish to talk, that does not imply acceptance or approval of the agreement and it does not need to be within the agreement. Nothing could be fairer than that. I have invited people to come and talk without preconditions. It is no good for people to jump up and down and shout about people not being consulted when that offer is available.
I am not here to belabour the point, but I would rather see genuine, sensible discussions taking place. The opportunity is there if they want to take it. If they do not, they can go on sticking in their trenches. We shall go on with our responsibilities of government. An opportunity will have been lost and the people of Northern Ireland will be the poorer for it.
Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State really believe that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland are now in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Is he not aware of the alienation that is felt by the Unionist population in Northern Ireland? Has he any idea of the objection that the Unionist population has to the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
If the right hon. Gentleman believes, and is confident, that the people have changed their minds and that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland are now in favour of it—and that the voice of Unionism in this House is not the voice of the people of Northern Ireland—he could prove it in a simple way. If he feels so confident, why not ask the people of Northern Ireland this simple question in a referendum: do they believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is in the interests of the United Kingdom? I and, I hope, the Secretary of State and hon. Members in all parts of the House would be happy to abide by the answer.
Mr. King: I have never pretended—I have made this absolutely clear—that a substantial number of Unionist people are, or have been, happy about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Some of them felt extremely strongly at the time of the signing. I am well aware of that. Indeed, I recognise one or two faces here who have sought to come in quite close contact with me on various occasions to try to make sure that I was aware of that fact. I do not resent that. There were strong emotions at the time.
I recognise also that, increasingly, people—while they may have reservations—are honest enough to admit that it has not proved to be the threat or disadvantage that they feared, and there are a few who are honest enough to admit that perhaps it could just have some benefit.
If there is one hon. Member in the House who should recognise that, it is the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who must have recognised the benefits that could flow to Northern Ireland from a fall in the Sinn Fein vote and from an increase in support for constitutional nationalism—[Interruption.]—and that a reduction in seats and numbers of councillors, which has happened—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster cares to add up the numbers of Sinn Fein
1144
councillors elected, he will find that in 1985 there were 59 and that on the last occasion there were 43. He may agree that that was a reduction. I would describe it as a fall of about 25 per cent. I should have thought that he would be the first to recognise that.
Mr. James Couchman: Paragraph 15 of the document "Developments since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement" mentions extradition and related matters. Extradition is perhaps the factor that has given most trouble in the three and a half years since the signing of the agreement. Is my right hon. Friend now happy that extradition arrangements have reached a satisfactory position? If not, what further aspirations has he to ensure that fugitives to the south from the north are returned for trial in the north if they are apprehended in the south?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right to say that that is an area which has given some of the most difficult problems and where some of the greatest emotions have been aroused. The report of the review shows that the two Governments are committed to continuing their examination of these matters with a view to ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place, both for extradition and for extra-territorial jurisdiction. In other words, we have concerns in this area and the work is continuing, and my hon. Friend will be aware that extraditions have recently been completed and that extra-territorial prosecutions have been conducted—[Interruption.] It is a matter about which some will laugh. They are not in the business of trying to establish effective arrangements. They are more interested in shouting abuse at the Irish Government than in seeing whether, between us, we can find an effective way to get arrangements in place so that fugitives cannot escape from justice merely by transferring themselves to another jurisdiction.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a wide welcome for the review because it represents a limited but significant record of co-operation between two countries, and not least because there is no record in the review, which I have studied, of interference in Northern Ireland, which was feared by many. Nor has the other difficulty of the internationalisation of the problems of Northern Ireland occurred?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that benefits are flowing to both sides from cross-border co-operation and from the international fund for Ireland? May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) in hoping that my right hon. Friend will press hard with the Law Officers to make further progress under paragraph 18 of the review so as to achieve fair and effective procedures for extradition?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I confirm that the work is continuing. We are determined to ensure that it is effectively in place and we have made that point clear. Under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act one successful extra-territorial prosecution has been conducted and a conviction achieved in Dublin. The Attorney-General has made it clear, depending on the suitability of individual cases, that we are ready to consider extra-territorial prosecution as well as extradition. The important point is that those who may be chargeable for crimes are brought before the court.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been a spectacular success, reflecting the skill of himself and his fellow Ministers and Ministers from the Republic of Ireland in the work that has been done, contrary to the prognostications at the time when it was originally launched? All the press in many countries said that the agreement would not last.
Will he also agree that much more needs to be done, both within the formal and informal framework of the agreement, on economic policy co-operation? Are there also prospects for greater co-operation within the EEC in achieving some of those goals?
Mr. King: Part of my message has been to try to discourage the claim that anything is a spectacular success. Irish issues—Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland relationships—long-standing and difficult as they are, do not lend themselves to immediate or overnight reconciliation or resolution. However, what I believe—and what I believe the House has honestly recognised in looking at the developments that have taken place—is that we are making steady and worthwhile progress in a constructive way that can only be of benefit to both communities and to all the people in the island of Ireland.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Notwithstanding that there have been improvements in cross-border security co-operation since, and as a result of, the signing of the agreement, may I ask my right hon. Friend what further progress he thinks can be made?
Mr. King: We can continue to reinforce that co-operation. The difficulty about security issues is that, obviously, I cannot talk about them in any detail. A lot of work is taking place and there is now ever closer co-operation in a number of important and relevant spheres. We are undertaking a considerable amount of work to try to ensure that wherever the terrorist may be and from wherever his resources may come—and I am talking not merely of armaments, weapons and explosives but particularly about an area that has not been sufficiently addressed in the past, which is money, cash, racketeering, smuggling and other aspects which undoubtedly have underpinned much of the terrorist effort—we can together steadily improve and concert our actions in all the necessary spheres.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, fundamental to any progress in Northern Ireland and at the heart of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, is a recognition of the rights and identities of the two traditions in Northern Ireland? The Anglo-Irish Agreement has given practical expression to that recognition by the improvements in appointments to public bodies, a code of conduct for the police, and improvements in the law relating to public order, employment and terrorism.
Mr. King: I agree with that. I feel that part of the quality of Northern Ireland comes from the diversity of the two traditions, which should be a source of enjoyment and appreciation and not a source of division. I have been struck by the Nationalists, who appreciate the marching tradition that exists in Northern Ireland. Marching, for instance, need not be seen as an aggressive and triumphalist act. Conducted in a responsible and non-provocative way, it can be seen as a decent
1146
remembrance of an ancient tradition. So many aspcts of the culture and tradition could be enjoyed. One would certainly like to see mutual respect enhanced and encouraged in that way.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.
5 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: 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 Anglo-Irish Agreement review of the working of the conference".
The matter is specific, it is important and it is urgent. We have heard in the House today the benefits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Good wishes were given to the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic, and I am sure that everyone would wish him well. I hope that he gets better quickly.
However, today I am thinking of the widows and the orphans in Northern Ireland. Not a line in the document concerns them. I would go further and say that today I speak for them. What has been said in the House about the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not reflect what is happening in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) knows Downpatrick. It is the centre of his constituency. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a grammar school, a Roman Catholic grammar school and a Roman Catholic secondary school. The proposal is to close down the one state Protestant grammar school in Downpatrick, so that the only children who will have an education in a grammar school will have to travel to Belfast. Therefore, the children of working-class people will not have the opportunity of a grammar school education.
Those are the issues that lie at the heart of the matter—discrimination against the Protestant sector of the community. That is why I am saying that the House should have a thorough discussion of the matter. Hon. Members should not talk about Northern Ireland Members not making any approach to discuss the matter. This is the place where the matter should be discussed.
I would welcome a referendum in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is not the first time that I have said that. I said it 10 years ago. Let us hear from the people of the United Kingdom what they want to do with Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland will abide by their decision. However, I can assure the House that it will not go into a united Ireland.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member 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 believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that has been announced."
I have listened with care and concern to what the hon. Member has said, but, as he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the

1147
orders set down for today. I regret that the matter that he Community Charge has raised does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Community Charge
5.2 pm
Mr. John McAllion: 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 extension of the date for poll tax rebate applications in Scotland beyond tomorrow's deadline."
The House is bitterly divided over the poll tax, but it should be united on the specific matter of trying to ensure that those who are entitled receive in full such rebates as are available to them. Yet, unless rebate applications are received by tomorrow's deadline, there is a danger that many thousands of Scots will begin to lose their rebate entitlements, for a number of reasons.
First, in many areas of Scotland, the implementation of the poll tax is causing the kind of administrative chaos that the Opposition have long predicted. There is a huge backlog of current rebate applications. There has been a much higher than expected volume of changes to the register, as people move around and across regional council boundaries—for example, Strathclyde officials are processing more than 120,000 changes to their register every week. There has been a flood of calls from angry and perplexed poll tax payers who are demanding explanations and more information on the tax. All those factors are placing enormous strains on the administrative systems and on local authority staff, and, as a result, the system is failing to deliver and to meet the administrative requirements for implementing the tax.
Today's Glasgow Herald, for example, reports that regional council finance departments are admitting that many Scots are only now receiving their payment books—just a few days before the deadline. It is little wonder that in the midst of such administrative chaos many who will be entitled to rebates will not yet have fully realised that they have to apply for a rebate or that the deadline for applications is tomorrow. If they apply beyond tomorrow's deadline, their entitlements to rebate will not be backdated to 1 April, and they will therefore suffer heavy financial loss.
That is a deplorable situation, but what is worse is that a party represented in the House is deliberately aggravating the situation by encouraging those who are not entitled to rebates to flood councils with rebate applications in the hope of bringing the entire rebate process to a grinding halt. That party is the Scottish National party. I do not know what kind of political capital it hopes to gain from such gross irresponsibility, but one thing that is certain is that the losers will be the poor, who will be denied rebates which to them could be a matter of make or break.
The poor must not be made to pay the price either of bureaucratic breakdown or of malevolent politicking. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider my application for a debate on this important matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member 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 believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

1149
"the need for an extension of the deadline for applications for community charge rebates in Scotland beyond tomorrow's deadline."
I regret that I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised meets the requirements of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Atomic Energy Act 1989.

2. National Maritime Museum Act 1989.

3. Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Act 1989.

4. Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

5. Scrabster Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1989

Lonrho (Letter)
5.9 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) called for a debate based on a whole series of early-day motions that he has tabled. I apologise for raising the matter when the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber. I did look for him in the building so that I could notify him of the fact that I was going to mention him, but I could not find him. Most of those early-day motions concern my constituent, Mr. David Coghlan, and his allegations of telephone tapping for Lonrho. Mr. Coghlan sent a letter to the hon. Member for Workington on 11 May, of which I have a copy, and a copy also went to Mr. Rowland of Lonrho.
The main thrust of that letter is illustrated by the following quote:
"You may recall I came to see you in the House and you showed me a photocopy of what you alleged was an affidavit sworn by myself. The contents of this so-called affidavit were extensively used by you in your early-day motions. You refused to give me a copy of this so-called affidavit. I believed it to be a forgery and told The Guardian just that … In order to put the record straight I am enclosing with this letter a copy of the statement in which I set out the events of 1985 to date to the best of my ability."
He went on to say that he was sending a copy of the letter to me, his Member of Parliament, and to Mr. Rowland.
I seek your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether the Table Office should, in future, accept early-day motions from the hon. Member for Workington on this subject, as I have given public notice to the House that there are grave questions about the authenticity of the material on which the hon. Gentleman bases his early-day motions and on which the hon. Gentleman is relying for his vendetta against Mr. Rowland of Lonrho.
Mr. Speaker: I can give a ruling on this. First, the hon. Gentleman should have notified the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that he was going to raise this matter. Secondly, every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says in an early-day motion and, provided it is in order, it can then go on the Order Paper. I cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of statements that may be made.
Mr. Dickens: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you for not informing the hon. Member for Workington, but, unfortunately, I did not know that he intended to raise this item during business questions this afternoon. I discussed this matter with your Office, Mr. Speaker, and with the hon. Gentleman and I intended to raise it in the House after the recess. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on the subject today, so I had to raise the matter today.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day
  Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
    New Clause 1

      POWER TO SECURE FURTHER UNDERTAKINGS OR ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTIONS
      '(1) Subsection (2) below applies where, by reason of any undertaking or directions under section 12 of this Act, any directions substituted for such directions by the Tribunal or any order made by the Tribunal for the purpose of giving effect to any such undertaking or directions, a notice has been served on any person under section 35(2) of this Act.

      (2) If, while the notice has effect, the Commission forms the opinion—

      (a) that the progress specified in the notice in respect of any period has not been made, and

      (b) that the person concerned ought to take action for promoting equality of opportunity in addition to the action required to be taken under the existing undertaking or directions,

      section 12 of this Act shall again apply in relation to the person concerned as if the Commission had conducted a fresh investigation under section 11 of this Act.

      (3) Where, by virtue of this section, the Commission secures a written undertaking from the person concerned or serves a notice on him containing directions—

      (a) the undertaking or directions shall have effect in place of the existing undertaking or directions, and

      (b) any notice previously served on him under section 35(2) of this Act shall cease to have effect, but without prejudice to any power to give a new notice under that subsection.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.12 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Bill, having passed its Second Reading and completed 18 Committee sessions, now moves back to the Floor of the House.
      New clause 1 represents a significant strengthening of the provisions in the Bill dealing with goals and timetables, and complements other amendments on the same subject which have been tabled to clauses 30 and 31.
      As the Bill stands at present the Fair Employment Commission may serve on an employer a notice relating to goals and timetables, and may make further inquiries of the employer at six-monthly intervals to assess what progress has been made. The amendments to clauses 30 and 31 to which I have just referred will enable an employer to set his own goals and timetables in the context of the periodic review of his work force which he is obliged to undertake under clause 30. The amendment will empower the commission, in those circumstances also, to make further inquiries in order to assess progress.
      The new clause essentially completes the exercise by enabling the commission to follow up a notice relating to goals and timetables by means of seeking further undertakings from an employer or issuing further directions to him. Both undertakings and directions are, of course, enforceable before the tribunal. An employer's failure to achieve the objectives which the commission thinks he should be able to achieve, as a result of action taken following earlier undertakings or directions, or his
      1152
      failure to achieve such objectives within the time the commission thinks appropriate, therefore become the triggers to allow the commission to seek further undertakings or to impose or modify, so as to strengthen, directions. The new clause also makes it clear that undertakings given or directions issued under this clause replace and supersede any previously given by or issued to the employer. I trust that the new clause is clear and I believe that it will be acceptable to the official Opposition as it will strengthen the Bill. I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: I agree with the Minister that the Bill was fully discussed in Committee. On a number of important points we were able to convince the Government of the need to alter and, in some cases, improve the Bill. We are delighted that the Minister and the Government have been able so to do.
      In the spirit of bipartisanship that has arisen from the Bill, we certainly welcome new clause 1. As the Minister rightly says, it strengthens the goals and timetables and, therefore, it is warmly welcomed by the official Opposition.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Robinson: There is no doubt that new clause 1 does exactly what the Minister and the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggest—it strengthens the goals and timetables set out in the Bill.
      It is important to consider the backcloth against which the goals and timetables will be used. The Bill is not what it purports to be—in favour of fair employment. To me and my colleagues, fair employment means that a person gains employment on merit—that that person is the best for the job. By inserting the provision that, over a specific period, the work force must be of a certain composition means that the criterion for employment is no longer merit, but the religious or political views of those who come to the personnel office. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? He seems to have stopped the gesticulation in which he was engaged. Perhaps that is the kind of behaviour that we can expect from the Alliance party.
      Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the hon. Gentleman talking to me?
      Mr. Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware of the gestures which he makes, which suggests more about his character than anything else.
      Rather than enforcing the principle of employment on merit, the Bill means that people will now be employed on the basis of their religion. That is contrary to the spirit of fair employment and, for that reason, my colleagues and I will oppose the new clause.
      I made it clear in Committee, and I repeat today, that I support the principle of fair employment. I believe that the best way to ensure fair employment is to impose severe punishments on anyone who discriminates in his employment policy. The steps that have been taken by the Minister, however, have been taken because of pressure coming from the Republic of Ireland as a result of the Anglo-lrish Agreement. The documentation that we discussed earlier this afternoon specifies that the Bill is part of the process instigated by the Intergovernmental Conference. The Secretary of State, however, has tried to deny that there is any basis for my argument that the government of Northern Ireland is now shared between

      1153
      the Government of the Irish Republic and the British Government. The Bill was born out of the Intergovernmental Conference and was pushed through the Anglo-Irish process by the Government of the Irish Republic, no doubt with accompanying pressure from those with republican traditions in the United States.
      The new clause will bring more division within the workplace and it will not assist in bringing a proper peace to the work force. We have a good work force in Northern Ireland and our workplaces have not experienced many problems. The Government, however, are attempting to introduce tension in the workplace and the new clause will go a long way towards that.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: I have to agree with many of the observations of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Will the Minister point out to us how he sees a policy of goals and timetables being able to rest easily with the merit principle? Does he not agree with the views expressed by the Confederation of British Industry, which is committed to fair employment and held seminars on fair employment long before this legislation was drawn up? Does he accept that the Bill puts severe pressure on the merit principle? As the CBI interprets it, it is expected that employers should meet heavy demands without somehow transgressing that principle. How are they to avoid transgressing the merit principle if they are forced to comply with goals and timetables?
      Mr. Viggers: I reaffirm that the merit principle, the appointment of the best man or woman for the job, is central to this legislation. It is a principle which has guided us throughout the drafting of all the clauses. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) referred to the CBI and I pay a tribute to the co-operative attitude of the CBI. I think that the CBI would recognise, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not, that it is necessary to have legislation to rectify the imbalance in employment in Northern Ireland. That is what this legislation sets out to do.
      The new clause simply broadens slightly the application of goals and timetables, which was extensively debated in Committee. I would not wish to go further into the merits of the issue, except to say that we are urging companies to apply good personnel practice and to look to all the population in Northern Ireland for recruitment purposes. In so far as companies may have been drawing from only one part of the community, we are encouraging them to look at all the community. So the guiding principles in this Bill have been the merit principle and good personnel practice.
      There is nothing further to say on that point and, on the basis of those two principles, I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
      The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 3.

      Division No. 216]

      [5.21 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Atkinson, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Amos, Alan

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Beith, A. J.

      Ashby, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bellingham, Henry

      1154

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Benyon, W.

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Boateng, Paul

      Hunter, Andrew

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Ingram, Adam

      Boswell, Tim

      Irvine, Michael

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Jack, Michael

      Bowis, John

      Janner, Greville

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Bright, Graham

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Knapman, Roger

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Burns, Simon

      Latham, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Livsey, Richard

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lord, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Chapman, Sydney

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Cohen, Harry

      Maclean, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Madden, Max

      Corbett, Robin

      Mans, Keith

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Couchman, James

      Mates, Michael

      Cran, James

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Curry, David

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

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

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Mellor, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Michael, Alun

      Dixon, Don

      Mills, Iain

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Dover, Den

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Durant, Tony

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Dykes, Hugh

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Paice, James

      Fallon, Michael

      Pike, Peter L.

      Favell, Tony

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Price, Sir David

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Riddick, Graham

      Forman, Nigel

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Forth, Eric

      Ruddock, Joan

      Foster, Derek

      Ryder, Richard

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Franks, Cecil

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Freeman, Roger

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gow, Ian

      Steen, Anthony

      Gregory, Conal

      Stern, Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Ground, Patrick

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Summerson, Hugo

      Hague, William

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Hannam, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Harris, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Thorne, Neil

      Haynes, Frank

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Hayward, Robert

      Vaz, Keith

      Heddle, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Hill, James

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Walden, George

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Waller, Gary

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

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Howells, Geraint

      Wells, Bowen

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      1155

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Wood, Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

      Yeo, Tim

      and Mr. John M. Taylor.

      NOES

      McCrea, Rev William

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Roy Beggs and

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Rev. Ian Paisley.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not complaining because I have done this, but I understand that while I was out of the Chamber the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) suggested that I had been given incorrect information and had tabled an early-day motion including that material. The document that I received, and on which the early-day motion was based, is a sworn affidavit that I interviewed the constituent of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth in my office for one and a half hours, and that during that meeting he was unable to deny the total authenticity of that material. Subsequently, I have sought, and gained, a further affidavit from a person who was directly involved in the drawing up of the original affidavit. I stand behind every statement that I made and seek to confirm the information contained in the affidavit.
      The original affidavit is signed by Mr. Coughlan, a self-confessed phone tapper, in which he states that he, on behalf of Mr. Tiny Rowland and Lonrho, tapped the phones of the A1-Fayeds.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Mr. Speaker dealt with that point earlier on and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has now got his point on the record.

    New Clause 2

      MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE TRAINING
      After section 37 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 there is inserted—
      "Measures to encourage training from under-represented community
      `37A. Nothing in Parts III or IV shall render unlawful any act done by

      (a) an employer,

      (b) an employment agency,

      (c) a vocational organisation, or

      (d) a person providing services mentioned in section 22(1) in or in connection with affording members of the Roman Catholic, or members of the Protestant, community in Northern Ireland access to facilities for training which is not intentionally confined to members of the Roman Catholic or Protestant community as the case may be and which would help to fit them for employment, for employment in a particular capacity, or for a particular employment or occupation, where the act is done in pursuance of affirmative action (within the meaning of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989'."—[Mr. McNamara.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 87, in line 20, leave out clause 51.
      Mr. McNamara: The new clause seeks to protect affirmative action programmes from challenges under the provisions dealing with direct discrimination. The issue was extensively debated in Committee, and, therefore, I shall not detain the House too long on this point. However, it is essential to put it on record.
      The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that employers can organise training schemes for the purposes of affirmative action. Those schemes are calculated to help members of an under-represented community to obtain employment in a place of work. On that, the Government and the Opposition are as one. However, in order to do so, the employer must be protected from those who would claim that affirmative action constitutes a violation of the prohibition on discrimination. That is normally done by means of a specific exemption, which excludes affirmative action from the prohibition on discrimination. That is the case with the legislation that deals with racial and sexual discrimination in Great Britain.
      More interestingly, the position has been recognised by the Government, who have introduced amendments that protect employers who advertise posts in a way that appeals exclusively to the under-represented community. The Bill also contains exemptions protecting the employer engaged in affirmative action training schemes from allegations of indirect discrimination. We welcome those.
      However, there is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition which the Government have not, as yet, accepted. We believe in the need to provide an exemption against direct discrimination. The Government have two objections to that. First, they sincerely believe that they have done enough to protect employers from such a charge. They believe that if an employer provides a training scheme, which would be indirectly discriminatory in the absence of the exemptions provided for in clause 51, the scheme cannot, at the same time, be directly discriminatory. Unfortunately, that is incorrect.
      The fallacy of that argument is revealed by the Bill. Clause 47 clearly relates to situations in which a particular practice may be both directly and indirectly discriminatory. In other words, there is an overlap between the two forms of discrimination. That is why the Opposition continue to believe that some form of exemption must be included for direct discrimination as well as for indirect discrimination.
      Secondly, in Committee, the Government argued that they also believed that an affirmative action scheme that does not totally exclude members of one or other community could not be considered directly discriminatory. However, the Bill contains no requirement totally to exclude one or the other community to demonstrate direct discrimination: The definition of direct discrimination in clause 47(2)(a) states:
      "on either of those grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons,"
      The test is whether a person is shown less favourable treatment, not whether he is exclude.
      The Government have set their face against permitting training schemes that are religiously exclusive. The new clause is explicit on that point. It would make it unlawful for an employer to set out with the intention of setting up a training scheme to exclude members of one or other of the two communities. Therefore, we hope that we have answered one of the Government's arguments relating specifically to religion.

      1157
      There is a need to clear up the Bill so that employers have a clear understanding of what is, and what is not, permissible. The House cannot allow excessive ambiguity to creep in. That would discourage employers from taking action to rectify religious imbalances within the work force.
      The new clause has a further merit. It deals with another continuing and vexatious problem—the conflict between clause 51 as it stands, the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the European Community's equal treatment directive of 1976. At present the exemptions provided for affirmative action with respect to indirect discrimination are themselves indirectly discriminatory in regard to women. The criteria mentioned, such as age and length of service, could have a detrimental effect on women, and would therefore be subject to challenge in the European Court of Justice. The new clause would prevent such unfortunate circumstances from arising.
      The Opposition are convinced that the Government did not intend the effect that the clause will have, but we think that careful consideration should be given to correcting the drafting. I hope that they will look favourably on the new clause, or will give an undertaking that it will result in changes being made in the other place.
      Mr. Ashdown: I shall not detain the House for long. Let me say merely that I fully support the new clause, which strikes me as well and carefully drafted. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that he hoped that the Government would accept the spirit of the new clause. I think that he and I both know that the hand behind it is that of Dr. Chris McCrudden, a widely respected expert on these matters. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept both the spirit and the vast majority of the words of the hon. Gentleman's cogent argument.
      The Government seem to be in a bit of a muddle. There is a clear contradiction between their admirable, laudable and supportable intention to provide affirmation action on the one hand, and their equally admirable aim to prevent indirect discrimination on the other. It is a matter of unfortunate circumstance that, at least in some instances, the one may be able to impinge on the other. Two admirable acts have been so juxtaposed that they may inhibit each other.
      The ambiguity needs some clarification, as I hope that the Government will accept. It would be a crying shame if what emerged from Committee as an excellent Bill—as a result of the Government's flexibility and the Opposition's cogent arguments—were to suffer from the Government's feeling that they had made their quota of accommodations and could not make a further one in this instance. The case, I think, stands by itself, and I very much hope that the Government will respond positively.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: I think that clause 51 has a further defect. As drafted, it takes account of only two religious communities in Northern Ireland, completely ignoring others.
      Unlike this island, Northern Ireland contains rapidly expanding ethnic communities. Furthermore, we are glad to say that we experience no friction or difficulty in absorbing those communities into the life and business activities of Northern Ireland. I feel that we should extend
      1158
      the narrow definition in the clause, which mentions only Roman Catholic and Protestant communities, making no allowance for others who, as British citizens—and, for that matter, non-British citizens—have a perfect right to enjoy the fulness of life in Northern Ireland.
      I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that many ethnic groupings contribute a great deal to the economy of Northern Ireland. Many are self-employed, but a considerable number are employed, and I feel that it would be a great mistake to exclude them from the provisions of the clause.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Viggers: We are dealing with the crucial subject of outreach training carried out in pursuance of affirmation action, which is no simple matter. There is no doubt that such training can play an important role in remedying under-representation, and it is essential that the Bill should make appropriate provision for it. Clause 51 is a genuine attempt to do that, but I accept that the Opposition and, indeed, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland are sincerely concerned about it.
      The Opposition consider that the circumstances specified in clause 51 could give rise to accusations of direct as well as indirect discrimination against any employer implementing the training permitted under the clause. Protection is, of course, already afforded in relation to indirect discrimination, and the Government are not as convinced as the Opposition of the legal validity of the need for protection against direct discrimination in the circumstances specified in clause 51. They readily accept, however, that the Opposition are motivated by a genuine concern to ensure as much protection as practicable against possible charges of direct discrimination, in addition to the protection against indirect discrimination that is already provided. They also accept that the Equal Opportunities Commission has genuine concerns about the criteria specified in clause 51—unemployment, age and length of service—and consider that they are potentially indirectly discriminatory against women and could invite challenge under not only national but European Community legislation.
      The Government's concern is to ensure that the detailed provisions of the Bill, while satisfying the requirements of the Opposition and the Equal Opportunities Commission, do not permit religion-specific training which would be divisive and unfair in Northern Ireland. I respect the action of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in tabling a new clause that takes account of our strong views, which are based on the position in Northern Ireland as we see it.
      New clause 2 looks helpful: it offers a possible solution that could accommodate the genuine objectives of all the parties concerned. It merits serious and positive consideration, which it is receiving. Although I am not in a position to express my acceptance of the precise form of words proposed, I can accept the broad approach in principle. I therefore propose to continue my examination of the new clause with a view to bringing forward an appropriate amendment in the Lords. On the basis of that commitment, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to withdrawing the new clause.
      The concern expressed by the Equal Opportunities Commission was on two counts. First, as I have said, the commission feared that the criteria specified in clause 51

      1159
      might give rise to potentially indirectly discriminatory action against women. We are addressing that point in our consideration of a subsequent Lords amendment. The commission's second fear was that the gender-specific training provided under the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 might be at risk of challenge on the ground of indirect religious discrimination. In Committee I gave a firm committment that nothing in the Bill would weaken the provisions of existing sex discrimination legislation, and that remains the Government's position.
      It is likely that the approach suggested in new clause 2 will not answer the commission's second concern. I therefore propose to ensure that the necessary legislation is effected to satisfy the commission's anxiety to protect gender-specific training from any accusation of indirect religious discrimination.
      I trust that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are seeking to meet the points that he has raised, and will be prepared to withdraw the new clause.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister made no reply to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). Perhaps he would like to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and say whether, in considering the new clause, he will make provision for no minority to be discriminated against, and for all to stand on an equal plane of fair opportunity.
      Mr. McNamara: No hon. Member on either side of the House wants discrimination to be practised against anyone on grounds of race, colour or creed. I am sure that I speak for the Government as well as for the Opposition.
      I found the Minister's reply most encouraging and helpful, and indeed generous, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 3

      ACTS DONE TO SAFEGUARD NATIONAL SECURITY ETC.
      `Subsections (2) and (3) of section 42 of the Fair Employment Act 1976 (certificate that act done for purpose of safeguarding national security, or of protecting public safety or public order to be conclusive evidence of that fact) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This matter was of considerable concern to our side of the Committee and in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).
      The effect of this new clause is to allow an independent scrutiny by the judiciary of national security notices issued by the Secretary of State, which at the present time cannot be challenged. This is an old argument over section 42. We believe that it is wrong for that decision to remain unchallengeable, first, because it is an anomalous element within the Bill. One of the strange facets of part II of the Bill concerns contract compliance. A contractor can be exempted and awarded a contract by the Secretary of State on the grounds of national security even if he happens to be an unqualified person, that is to say, a person who deliberately discriminates. Therefore, under the normal qualifications, and despite the enormous and very difficult procedures, he is eventually deemed to be not a suitable
      1160
      person to redeem a Government contract or a grant, but such an unqualified person may be given such a contract or grant on the ground of national security.
      Under part II of the Bill the Secretary of State's decision in such a matter would be unchallengeable because the courts would be able to exercise judicial review of his decision. Under section 42 of the 1976 Act no such judicial review exists in the case of a person denied employment or a contract by virtue of the Secretary of State's national security certificate. This certificate allows the Secretary of State to prevent an investigation into a case of alleged discrimination on the ground of national security. No provision for any form of appeal or judicial supervision exists to prevent abuses of power in this way.
      The other anomaly is that it is not in conformity with the Sex Discrimination Order under which, since an amendment moved by the Government last year, national security certificates are subject to judicial review. That is the case of Johnston v the RUC. As a result of this provision, and particularly because the tribunal may at times have both a sex and a religious jurisdiction to carry out, a ludicrous situation arises. An individual can bring a case under the Fair Employment Bill and under the Sex Discrimination Order. If a national security certificate were issued by the Secretary of State, the complainant could seek a judicial review under the Sex Discrimination Order but not under the Bill. That is obviously nonsense.
      Secondly, once again, this Bill could be in conflict with international law. The case of Johnston v the RUC went to the Communities courts, but under the European convention on human rights there is an insistence that an individual must have redress against an arbitrary use of power. So, again, with regard to the Secretary of State's certificate, there could be an application to the European convention on human rights.
      Thirdly, there is widespread concern in Northern Ireland about this issue, as demonstrated by the recent BBC programme "Taking Liberties". The Minister may object by saying that section 42 has been used only in a limited number of cases, and that is correct.
      That is wrong for two reasons. If an injustice has been done, a person should be entitled to a correction of that injustice under our system. Secondly, and more importantly, within Northern Ireland itself it is widely believed that the formal use of section 42 is merely the tip of the iceberg. It is widely believed that individuals are often denied access to employment on the pretext of national security when, in fact, the real reason for their exclusion is quite different.
      There are two infamous cases of people denied work at Ballylumford. One of them, a scaffolder, could not work on national security grounds in Ballylumford but could be employed in the headquarters of the British Army in Lisburn, Northern Ireland opposite the General Officer Commanding. There is also the case of a person who was denied a job at Ballylumford but nevertheless got an invitation to the garden party at Hillsborough to meet the Queen Mother, together with a map of how to get there.
      Our proposal recognises the need for national security exemption. Judicial review provides sufficient flexibility and security to combine proper concerns for national security with protection against the arbitrary use of power. An application to a judge ex-parte in this matter does not necessarily need the person making the appeal to see the evidence and does not have to take place in set premises.

      1161
      The judge concerned can examine the evidence upon which a decision is based at, for example the headquarters of the RUC.
      One does not doubt the integrity of the Secretary of State. He has grievous responsibility in making such a decision. He can be led into error, as recent cases before the courts might possibly reveal. Let me give a hypothetical example. Public authority X, where there is an overwhelming majority of one group employed, decides to issue an application for a job or, more specifically, for a contract. Y, a member of the other community, either applies for a job or for the contract and gets that contract. Thereupon the majority work force of public authority X objects because, in one phrase, the person involved came from the borders, which is a polite euphemism for saying that he is a member of the nationalist community.
      X's work force now objects to Y getting the job, because they are from the borders. X is in a difficulty with his work force and therefore withdraws the contract on the ground that Y is not competent to carry out the contract. Y then produces evidence to show not only that he is competent to carry out the contract but that he has carried out similar contracts in the past and is in every way well suited to carry out work of that nature. So, X having given way to the pressure from his work force to exclude a person from the contract or the job, seeks another way round and seeks to ensure that section 42 notice is issued by the Secretary of State to say that Y is in fact a potential threat, or a suspected threat, to national security.
      I have given that example because it mirrors in many ways the case now before the court.
      The effect of that case is that a person has been discriminated against on the ground of religion. There has been an attempt to disguise that discrimination by saying, first that, because a person is not competent, he cannot carry out the task at hand. When the competence is not shown to be a real reason for denying the employment, section 42 is called in to deal the blow.
      If the Secretary of State has no reason to give and is not subject to judicial review, we cannot know how or why the decision has been made and whether it has been made fairly.
      Many of the decisions are questions of judgment. We acknowledge that immediately. They are important matters concerning the life and safety of the subjects. However, they concern the freedom of the individual, the right to pursue one's chosen vocation without fear of the malicious intent of somebody objecting to one's religion, the malicious use of a confidential telephone call or somebody trying to settle a personal or industrial score. Those are the problems that arise now and we are seeking to overcome them by suggesting that the Secretary of State's complete power of exemption should be looked at carefully. It would be helpful if we had the power of judicial review of decisions made by the Secretary of State.
      6 pm
      Mr. Viggers: The new clause, which is identical to new clause 6 tabled in Committee, is intended to repeal subsections (2) and (3) of section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. Subsection (2) provides that a certificate signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State certifies that an act specified in the
      1162
      certificate was done for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1)—safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order. Subsection (3) provides that a document purporting to be such a certificate shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, shall be deemed to be such a certificate. The effect of the new clause is to abolish the section 42 certificate procedure, but not the national security defence.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) acknowledged the regrettable but nevertheless clear need to retain the national security safeguard provided in section 42(1) of the 1976 Act. The continuing need for such a provision was noted by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and there are few, if any, in the House who would attempt to deny that need. Nevertheless, the real effect of the hon. Gentleman's new clause 3 would be to dismantle the usefulness of the safeguard completely, and I feel sure that that is not his intention. Let me explain what I mean.
      An act is done by an employer on the ground of safeguarding national security, but is challenged on the ground that it is in fact an act of religious discrimination. The case comes before the Fair Employment Tribunal. If subsections (2) and (3) of section 42 are removed and the certification schemes abolished, the employer must appear before the tribunal to substantiate his claim that his action was justified on grounds of safeguarding national security, or protecting public safety or public order. Revelation of the kind of information which might have led to an employer forming that sort of judgment could be extremely damaging, not just to the overall security effort in Northern Ireland but, in some circumstances, to the safety of individuals. The House will not expect me to amplify these concerns, but they lie at the very root of the national security safeguard and the certification procedure which is part and parcel of that safeguard.
      Mr. Harold McCusker: I apologise for being late, but I was unavoidably detained. However, I have listened carefully to the Minister and he is giving the impression that employers make judgments on national security and that it is employers who use that excuse to discriminate. In every case that has been presented to me where a person has been denied employment with a construction company at a security base within perhaps the grounds of Stormont castle, and the company has employed, say, a Roman Catholic and submitted the list of names to the Ministry of Defence or the Northern Ireland Office, the complaints are from the employers. They complain about the action taken by the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends in discriminating against a person by saying that he is not fit to work on the site. Who is the discriminator in those circumstances, or who is making the excuse of discrimination? Employers do not cite national security. Most employers could not care tuppence for national security. They are concerned only with earning a profit and getting their job done.
      Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Section 42 procedure is used by the Government. The certificate is signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and it is for him to say that there are issues of national security involved and that he deems it necessary, in the public interest, that an individual should not be entitled to take advantage of the claim of discrimination which he is alleging,

      1163
      I do not demur from the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will accept that concerns have been expressed about section 42 because, by nature of the procedure and because national security is involved, it is not possible to be as clear as one would like about the grounds on which the certificate has been signed. As the House would expect, section 42 certificate applications are taken seriously by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They are subject to detailed scrutiny.
      Mr. Ashdown: We all recognise that this is a complex matter. That was illustrated by the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). However, I do not understand why the Minister is suggesting that allowing the Secretary of State's decision to be open to judicial review would be damaging in this case but works perfectly well under the Sex Discrimination Order 1988. If it applies in that case, why can it not apply here?
      Mr. Viggers: I shall come to that. It is a detailed point and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed with my argument until I reach it.
      As I have said, concerns have been expressed about section 42 and we would like to find ways of modifying the system to make it more demonstrably fair. Although those responsible for the administration of the system can see that it is fair, we must seek to make it demonstrably fair.
      As I warned in Committee, we were not optimistic about devising modifications that would not risk undermining the entire operation of the national security safeguard. I have to say that, at least for the time being, we are not in a position to make any change to the existing system. That does not mean that we have abandoned our attempt to meet the concerns that have been expressed. We are currently examining the administrative procedures to see whether they can usefully be revised. I am sorry that this is a disappointing response to hon. Members' concerns but we cannot countenance any change that would undermine a vital safeguard.
      Mr. Molyneaux: The Minister should be assured that he should not have any qualms of conscience. We are not directing our criticisms solely at Conservative Secretaries of State and Ministers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) would admit that Labour Secretaries of State indulged in that activity with even greater enthusiasm in their day.
      Mr. Viggers: We take no pleasure in the administration of the system. The prime concern must be the security of Northern Ireland and its people. However, we are seeking to find ways of demonstrating that the system we operate is fair and can be seen to be fair. That is why we are expressing so much concern about this point.
      The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked about the distinction between fair employment provisions and those relating to sex discrimination. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has made a case for changing section 42 in the same way that article 53 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 was changed in 1988—removing the certification system altogether. Despite his pleadings, I am not convinced. The judgment in the Johnston case, which led to the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Order 1988, was concerned
      1164
      only with equality of opportunity between the sexes. Legislation on religious discrimination is unaffected by that judgment.
      He also mentioned the apparently anomalous case of a complaint of religious discrimination under part III of the 1976 Act which also contained allegations of sex discrimination contrary to part III of the 1976 order. I agree that this anomaly exists in theory, but I seriously doubt whether it is ever likely to arise in practice.
      The national security issues which might have been relevant in the context of article 53 of the 1976 order are not the same as the issues which would be relevant in the context of section 42 of the 1976 Act. The circumstances when being female could give rise to national security issues are likely to be limited, whereas such issues under the 1976 Act are likely to turn on a person's political opinion or supposed political opinion, and would therefore be uncommon. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: I support the new clause so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). On behalf of my party, I tabled amendments on this matter in Committee, and I think that I elicited some sympathy from the Minister because he undertook to deliberate on the points made to him. I am sure that he honoured that commitment, but I am extremely disappointed that the results of the deliberation are "no change".
      For the benefit of people who do not live in Northern Ireland, it is important to understand the context of my anxiety that a safeguard should be given to individuals and companies when national security is invoked. A telephone call on a confidential line can prevent a person from obtaining or taking a job or can result in a person being dismissed. The use of the confidential telephone can prevent a firm from being given a contract or can result in a firm being moved off a site. Of course, that can he done only after the issue of a section 42 certificate.
      There have been occasions in my experience, and which I am capable of proving, when a section 42 certificate was withdrawn because it was invalid and not based on adequate evidence. In Committee I tried to achieve a means by which decision making could be challenged in a confidential way. A person or company can be accused, found guilty and "sentenced" without having any knowledge of the reason for the accusation. It was to try to achieve a vehicle by which justice could be seen to be done, to use an often quoted phrase, that we suggested a means of appeal so that the persons concerned could at least be made aware of their alleged transgressions and could be given the opportunity, as justice demands, of presenting a defence. It was nothing more dramatic than that. It was simply to try to introduce an element of natural justice.
      I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has come to us again with no progress to report on that matter, although I admit that he has made much progress in many other spheres. On this matter no progress appears to have been made and no hope is being held out. Cases can crop up from day to day. I have seen young apprentices and adult men and women deprived of jobs, and I have seen companies deprived of contracts without apparent justification. After representations from me, some people were reinstated. Every Northern Ireland Member will have similar experiences. That is why it is important for us to

      1165
      have a means by which the defence of innocence can be made and reconsideration can be undertaken by the Secretary of State. Much of this is done on the basis not of national security, but simply of raw, naked sectarianism.
      Mr. Ashdown: I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but the Minister's argument was so tortuous and unconvincing that I wonder whether there is something more at the heart of this that is not being revealed to us. I read the reports of the proceedings in Committee and they seemed to be characterised by a great deal of intelligence and logic and people adopted accommodating positions. The Minister's argument has not been characterised either by such accommodation or by such logic.
      The Minister suggested that because an injustice is likely to be small it does not matter. It is the argument about the housemaid's baby. Surely in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland it is more important there than elsewhere to apply justice equally and fairly. We all know that there are quirks and idiocies in the law as it applies in England, and that they take a good deal of time to iron out.
      The Government have the opportunity to set in place a law whose application will be manifestly different from those of a similar law which applies to discrimination in other areas. It is clear that there is the possibility of one case running in parallel with another. A person against whom a security certificate has been laid could appeal in a sex discrimation case. That person has the right to appeal to a judicial review, but another person who is claiming discrimination on religious grounds and against whom a security certificate is also laid does not have the right to such an appeal. How could that be fair, logical or just?
      The Minister's argument on judicial review rests on two pillars. The first is that there will be relatively few—I think that is what the Minister said—cases of discrimination on grounds of sex which would have national security implications. I do not argue that there will be many such cases, but the Minister must concede that potentially there will be some. Why should they be treated on a different basis?
      6.15 pm
      The second pillar of the Minister's argument is that providing judicial review will so wholly undermine the process of security certification as to make it worthless. If it does not make it worthless in the case of sex discrimination—and the Government have not taken that view—why should it make it worthless in this case? I do not understand why the Minister is following a course which is so manifestly not equal on both sides and which so obviously does not stand up to logical scrutiny.
      I suppose that the House must take refuge in the fact that in the past the Minister has accommodated arguments and when he has told us that he will go away and think further about a matter we must give him the benefit of the doubt that he will do that. I appeal to him to find a mechanism to meet the legitimate grievances that have been put forward. If he does not, he has in his hands a positive and deliberate mechanism to build into the process of the law that he is constructing an inequality which will make the law look like an idiot when it is applied.
      Mr. Viggers: Out of a total of 28 section 42 certificates, 17 were signed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland only after very careful deliberation. That puts into context the problem with which we are dealing. Certificates are not issued lightly; they are issued with great care. A section 42 certificate is conclusive in the sense that it is a statement by the Secretary of State that national security is involved and that, therefore, the merits of the issue cannot be investigated. In some instances the very demonstration of the case in public or to the people concerned, the very explanation of the facts that have been brought together, would be contrary to the national security interest. I cannot elaborate further on what I have said to the House.
      Mr. McNamara: I am disappointed at what the Minister has said. Although I do not intend to divide the House on the issue because it may be raised in another place in more detail, I should like to make one or two observations on what the Minister has said. First and most important, he said that merely because Johnston v. the RUC concerned women, he did not think that it would be a terribly important precedent. I shall give him an example.
      Within a sensitive area, job applications are sought for three clerks. Suppose that there are a number of applications for those jobs, one of which is from a woman, but that they are all filled by men and that the woman is denied one. The woman could bring an action on the ground of sex discrimination because all the other applicants were men and that, on the balance of merit, she should have been seriously considered for an appointment rather than be caught out because of her sex. Alternatively, she could make an appeal to the tribunal on the same basis, and then to the courts.
      It could be that that woman applicant is a potential para-military. However, if all the appointees had been women, and the one male applicant had not been appointed in the interests of national security, he would not, under the Minister's proposals, be allowed to appeal against that decision except on the ground of sex discrimination. He would not be able to do that if all the others appointed were men. Equally, a woman applicant could not appeal if there were women among those appointed.
      I hoped that the Minister would take a stronger approach to the question of administrative procedures. A number of cases currently before the courts concern situations in which strange decisions have been made. It will be impossible for the Government to defend their position. Someone will inevitably take a case to the European Court citing the European convention on human rights and arbitrary uses of power, with the result that there will be another cause célébre such as the Grogan case. That would not be good for the Government, and not a happy precedent to set in dealing with the sensitive matter of security in Northern Ireland. It will not help matters if the Government are paraded before the European Court for being insensitive to human rights. Nor will it do our country, or the administration of justice, any good, or help to enhance confidence in legal and civil administration.
      I hope that the Government will be able to produce a more persuasive argument when the Bill goes to another place. While I understand the Government's arguments, it is possible under existing systems to provide for a degree

      1167
      of review by an independent member of the judiciary. A judge can say, "I have considered certain matters where I consider that the Secretary of State's judgment was right, but in other cases it was wrong and an injustice was done." I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      CONTRACT AND GRANT COMPLIANCE
      '(1) Except in contracts certified in accordance with the provisions of section 39(7) of this Act, all public authorities shall include the provisions of the Code of Practice in every contract hereafter entered into with every person ("the contractor").

      (2) The contractor shall include the provisions of the Code of Practice to this Act in every sub-contract so that such provisions are binding upon each subcontractor, unless the sub-contract is certified in accordance with the provisions of section 39(7) of this Act.

      (3) Every public authority shall require as a condition for the award of any contract that each prospective contractor or subcontractor shall submit a statement in writing to the effect that he is already implementing the provisions of the Code of Practice.

      (4) Every public authority which administers a programme involving financial assistance included in section 41(2) of this Act applies shall require as a condition for the approval of any such grant, that the applicant shall submit a statement in writing to the effect that he is implementing the provisions of the Code of Practice.

      (5) The Department shall draw up regulations providing such means of enforcing the provisions of this section as it considers appropriate.'.—[Ms. Mowlam.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 4 attempts to point out the inadequacies of the Bill's contract compliance provision. It suggests an alternative concept to that proposed by the Government, who conceive of contract compliance as a last resort to be used as a stick against those employers who deliberately and persistently fail to promote equal opportunity. Our clause involves a carrot approach. Rather than use contract compliance in a punitive way, it enshrines a positive strategy. Employers who promote equality of opportunity would enjoy the advantages of being eligible for contracts and grants. Employers who did not promote it would not. Employers would be required to attain an acceptable minimum standard of fair employment before becoming eligible. Therefore, contract compliance would be used primarily as an instrument to reward good employers, rather than as a last-sanction against persistent discriminators.
      That approach was suggested by the Department of Economic Development in its consultative document on fair employment. The Government jettisoned the best feature of that document. The same type of contract compliance was advocated by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and by the Northern Ireland Congress of Trade Unions. The new clause has two other noteworthy features. First, it extends contract compliance requirements to subcontractors, which is important but notably absent from the Bill. Secondly, it ensures that the same procedures apply both to contracts and Government grants. At present, that is not the case, because clause 39 states that a public authority shall not enter into any contract with unqualified persons unless certain conditions are fulfilled, while discretion to award
      1168
      contracts to unqualified persons is given in clause 40. The possibility that public authorities will make grants to persistent discriminators is unacceptable.
      Mr. Viggers: The scope of new clause 4 is wide and would involve a substantial change to the Bill It is superficially attractive, but I urge the House to resist it on the grounds that it is impracticable and unworkable, and that to incorporate it in the Bill as it has evolved would be difficult. It would also be difficult to enforce.
      The mechanism proposed in the Bill for the application of important economic sanctions is straightforward, equitable and effective. It strikes when notice of disqualification has been served by the commission. It has none of the complications of inserting provisions into contracts or of auditing conformity with declarations of statements of intent. New clause 4 would introduce all those unnecessary and cumbersome complications. It requires every contract and subcontract to include all the provisions of the code of practice, and it provides no definition of what is meant by a contract. It applies to contracts regardless of their nature and size, and of the financial amounts involved.
      New clause 4 falls back on a mechanism that we tried and found inadequate—the submission of statements of compliance. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) was right in saying that the Department of Economic Development made such a proposal, but we came to the conclusion that that would not be the best way to proceed. The Bill as drafted incorporates a broadly similar mechanism, which is the declaration of principle and intent. We propose moving on to a system that we are sure will be much more effective, which is a clear trigger mechanism based on a notice of disqualification.
      The new clause does not set out coherent or considered proposals for enforcing the provisions it makes but proposes instead to delegate that important aspect to departmental regulations. There is no indication of what those regulations might contain. For the practical reasons that I have described, the new clause would not be helpful and I invite the House to resist it. In doing so, I am not rejecting the concept that the hon. Lady presents, but careful consideration of it has prompted us to move on from the basis suggested in her new clause.
      Mr. Molyneaux: The clause appears to deal solely with contractors based in Northern Ireland. I have always found it difficult to understand why contract compliance does not exist in Great Britain, where there is a far greater need for it. From time to time there are clamourings for such a provision, but even right hon. and hon. Members who are the representatives of ethnic communities do not seem to be terribly diligent in promoting their constituents' claims and requests in this House.
      What will happen under the provisions of new clause 4 if a company based in England decides to tender for a Northern Ireland contract? There are many examples of that happening. Is it required to certify that it is complying already with the terms of the clause? What will happen if such a contractor comes to Northern Ireland and says, "I cannot sign that certificate because the requirement does not exist in law in England where I am based"?
      Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether his Department and those responsible for enforcing the legislation will be content with an English contractor promosing that if he obtained the contract he would

      1169
      comply with the codes of practice and all the regulations. How would that promise be enforced if the contract were awarded and the operation were sealed? At what stage and in what manner would the authorities manage effectively to apply the regulations and make certain that they were watertight?
      6.30 pm
      Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members feel that the legislation is one-sided. People feel that there is massive discrimination in Northern Ireland by Protestants against Roman Catholics. I shall refer to my constituency of Mid-Ulster. I do not think that the Opposition have shown much consideration or care for people, especially the Protestant community west of the Bann. Will the Minister confirm that sanctions will be applied against Roman Catholic companies in my constituency that have no Protestant employees whatsoever? I note that Opposition Members are nodding approval, but I have never heard any Opposition Member referring to the Protestants west of the Bann who are being discriminated against. It appears that many Government and Opposition Members feel that the legislation will apply east of the Bann to remove Protestants from jobs and to deny them jobs rather than being fair across the community.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the employment of Mr. Cooper lends credence to what he has said? Time and again cases have been drawn to the attention of Mr. Cooper and he has refused to investigate. For example, he would not investigate firms in Londonderry which employed no Protestants whatsoever. How can the people of Northern Ireland have any faith in him and believe that he will have a Damascus road experience—or a Dublin road experience—and say that he will now investigate firms that do not employ people from both sides of the religious divide?
      Rev. William McCrea: My hon. Friend has made the next point that I wanted to draw to the attention of the House. My biggest problem is that I have consistently made representations to the Fair Employment Agency about the denial of jobs to my constituents, but the agency would not investigate. Will the Minister assure the House—I should like it on record so that I can refer to it in future—that, whenever a Member of Parliament makes representations and requests investigations into firms west of the Bann, such an investigation will take place?
      In my constituency, some firms employ a work force that is 98 per cent. Roman Catholic and 2 per cent. Protestant, yet those firms receive handsome handouts in Government aid. Photographs often appear in the newspapers and they are commended for their excellent employment.
      I know that my colleagues from Northern Ireland want fair employment, not favoured employment. We are not denying the right to fair employment. I would fight for fair employment, but it seems that there will be favoured employment and I do not accept that that is a proper concept.
      The Minister should take into account the fact that a report by Mr. Cooper of the Fair Employment Agency on employment in local government in Magherafelt found the
      1170
      Magherafelt district council guilty of discrimination against Roman Catholics. In the past 16 years, the council was under SDLP control for 12 years, and under Unionist control for only four years. It was interesting that Mr. Cooper's report revealed that the only years of fair employment were the four years when I was chairman of the Magherafelt district council. I found that most interesting. I should be glad if the Government and the Opposition would read that report, as it proves that I believe in fair employment and at that time there was fair employment in the Magherafelt district council and throughout the community.
      I am concerned that sanctions appear to apply to Protestant firms and people who own companies. It will be most interesting when I refer to the Minister companies in my constituency that are displaying, in the words of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), blatant sectarianism in discriminating against the Protestant community. I hope that the hon. Member for South Down will join me in making representatons for funding to be removed from those firms.
      Mr. Viggers: With the leave of the House, I rise only to reassure hon. Members that the legislation we are considering applies equally to Catholics and Protestants. In that sense, it is entirely even-handed. If the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) feels that any case of discrimination is not being pursued and is unable to get satisfaction from the Fair Employment Commission, I hope that he will draw it to my attention and not make allegations in the House which he has not pursued elsewhere. It would be quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to make allegations which were difficult to substantiate if the Government had not been given the opportunity to pursue them. Subject only to those points, I reaffirm that we do not consider that the new clause would be helpful.
      Ms. Mowlam: I wish to make one short point to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). If he had read the Standing Committee report in sufficient detail, he would know that hon. Members on both sides of the House gave examples from both sides of the Bann.
      Rev. William McCrea: When we referred matters of discrimination to the relevant authorities, it did not work. I have not received an authoritative statement from the body that I was told would look into fair employment. I have requested an investigation into the Department of Health and Social Services, naming the officers and the posts, and after six years I have still to receive an answer from the Fair Employment Agency.
      Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman raised two points and I was replying to the first, so his intervention was irrelevant to my remarks. If he has specific complaints, he should take them up with the Government and not with the Opposition.
      The hon. Gentleman seems to use the Fair Employment Agency when it suits him—as he did when he referred to Magherafelt council—and then he makes negative comments in the House against Mr. Bob Cooper of the Fair Employment Agency, when Mr. Cooper is unable to reply.
      Mr. Molyneaux: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms. Mowlam: No, I shall not give way, as those points should be addressed by the Minister. I was simply putting it on record that it was out of order for the hon. Gentleman to raise those points in that way.
      I understand the difficulties that the Minister has pointed out with regard to the new clause. It is disappointing that he feels unable to include it in the Bill in a more concrete way than saying that he accepts the concept. I hope that the Minister will not divorce theory and practice in regard to other issues. If he accepts the concept of the new clause, I hope that there will be further developments on contract compliance in another place or at a later stage. We are disappointed, but we accept the Minister's points. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, leave out from `Commission)' to end of line 19 and insert
      `after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
      "(aa) promoting affirmative action:".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 72.
      Mr. Viggers: The purpose of Government amendment No. 1 is to give the commission a clear and specific duty to promote affirmative action as well as promoting equality of opportunity and working for the elimination of discrimination. It in no sense changes the remit originally given to the Fair Employment Commission. It merely imposes a clear and specific duty on it to promote affirmative action. For that reason, I hope that Opposition Members and other hon. Members will believe that the amendment is worthwhile.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
      '(3) References in the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts to the Commission include, in relation to any time before the commencement of subsection (1) above, references to the Fair Employment Agency for Northern Ireland.'.
      We are moving through many amendments. I am happy to clarify any of the Government amendments, but unless I am challenged, I propose to deal with them briefly.
      Government amendment No. 2 makes it clear that any reference to the commission in the Act between Royal Assent and the creation of the commission under clause 1(1) should be construed as a reference to the Fair Employment Agency. It is a simple matter.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      CONSTITUTION OF THE TRIBUNAL
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 8, after 'exercised', insert
      `by a single tribunal or'.
      1172
      The amendment seeks to remove the unsatisfactory form of words from clause 2(2) and provides a clearer description of the way in which the Fair Employment Tribunal will operate.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      THE PRESIDENT
      Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'Department' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 75, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'Department' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.
      No. 76, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'Department' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.
      Mr. Marshall: I hesitate to slow down the rapid progress we are making on the Bill, but I must address amendment No. 74 and the others in a little more detail than was given to the three previous amendments.
      The amendment concerns the person or body who is to appoint the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal. Under the Bill, the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal is to be appointed by the Department of Economic Development. I do not intend to go into a diatribe or a detailed criticism of the history of the Department of Economic Development as this is not the appropriate place or time. The amendment should not be seen as a direct or indirect criticism of the Department of Economic Development.
      We seek to remove the power of the Department to appoint the president and to vest that power in the Lord Chancellor. Our reason is to emphasise the independence of the tribunal. As the Minister knows from Committee, we believe that if the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal is seen to be appointed by the Department of Economic Development, it could call into question the independence not only of the president himself, but of the tribunal.
      All parties are agreed that it is vital that the tribunal is both seen to be and is in practice impartial and independent of the Government. The Bill shows that the Government themselves partially recognise that problem. Once the president of the tribunal is appointed, he is appointed for life. Once he is appointed, there is no further need to genuflect either to Ministers or to the Department of Economic Development. The Government should go the whole hog and remove any nexus between a Government Department, such as the Department of Economic Development, and the president of the tribunal.
      6.45 pm
      Before the Minister tells me that that would create a precedent and might create problems for appointments in the future, I must point out to him that there are precedents that support the basis of our amendment. I will highlight two of them. The Lord Chancellor appoints the president of the industrial tribunals for England and Wales. More importantly, the Lord Chancellor also makes appointments to bodies whose remit is within the confines of Northern Ireland Departments. The president of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal for the north of Ireland, for example, is appointed by the Lord Chancellor. There

      1173
      is support for the amendment from all parties in the Chamber. I urge the Government to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Viggers: I must point out to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) that the president of the Fair Employment Tribunal is not appointed for life. He is appointed until the age of 72 and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join with me in wishing Mr. Maguire a long and happy retirement after the age of 72.
      I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the appointment would be made better by the Lord Chancellor than by the Department. I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to emphasise the similarities between the functions of the president and those of a judge. There are considerable similarities, but there is one important difference. Industrial tribunals, fair employment and the regulation of employment practices and employment matters generally are transferred matters, which in the event of devolution would be the responsibility of a devolved Administration. We had a similar discussion in Committee when it was suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have direct responsibility for fair employment matters, rather than most of the statutory responsibilities resting with the Department of Economic Developments.
      Mr. Molyneaux: That is a vital point. The Minister said that if devolved government were achieved that would be one of the responsibilities of the devolved Government. That is something new and we are encouraged by it. But the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not say that. It says that, in the event of agreement being reached under article 4, certain matters may be devolved, but not the transferred matters. That is an advance and I am grateful for it.
      Mr. Viggers: What I have said is clearly understood. I am certainly not enunciating a new principle. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am, perhaps we need to discuss why that should be. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I was enunciating simple and clear principles.
      In the event of devolution, it would be inappropriate for the Lord Chancellor to have responsibility in transferred matters. It would be open to a devolved Administration and a devolved assembly to make whatever changes they thought fit in employment law. It would be strange if the Lord Chancellor and a devolved Administration were involved in the same area and it would only cause confusion. I ask the House not to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: As the Minister knows, we discussed these matters in Committee. We put similar arguments and the Minister has given virtually the same replies as he gave in Committee. Perhaps we are at a stand-off. Before gracefully withdrawing the amendment—[Interruption.] We will continue to make our point in another place and in this House again, if the Bill returns amended from the House of Lords. We seek to emphasise the absolute independence of the tribunal both from Government Ministers and from specific Government Departments, such as the Department of Economic Development, in the north of Ireland. A method of doing that has still to be found.
      1174
      We regret very much that the Government are not prepared to accept the Lord Chancellor instead of the Department in that role, but perhaps the Minister will reconsider the problem. When the issue is raised in another place, perhaps the Minister who replies there on behalf of the Government could respond to this point as sympathetically as the Minister has just done. Perhaps with a little more understanding and co-operation we could seek to bring about the change that we desire. I shall withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Beggs: I raised this matter in Committee and was grateful for the support that was given to me then. I should be opposed to the amendment being withdrawn.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: It would be more helpful if the House knew about the deals between the two Front Benches and if we knew which amendments were to be withdrawn and which put up for barter because what we are doing now is a charade. We shall press the amendments for all the reasons that were given by the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen who have appealed to hon. Members from Northern Ireland. We realise that there is reason, but I should have thought that it would be far better if the Lord Chancellor made the appointment because that would remove this issue from politics and from a Government Department. The appointment would then be removed from a Government Department and from accusations of Government patronage. I should have thought that that would be a good way to proceed. The Opposition should hold on to their amendment and seek to divide the House.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: I should like to make two points in response to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I must emphasise to the reverend gentleman that there is no agreement in terms of timetabling the remaining stages of the Bill—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) seems to find this amusing.
      Rev. William McCrea: I certainly do.
      Mr. Marshall: Of course, and I understand the reasons. His ignorance of this matter was obvious in our previous discussions. If he had had discussions with his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) he would know that this matter was discussed fully in Committee and that we were heavily defeated.
      That brings me to my second point, which is a political point. If we were to seek to press the amendment to a Division now and if we were to suffer a heavy defeat of around 170 votes to 15 or 20, it would hardly enhance our ability to ensure that a change was achieved in the Bill in the other place. For that and other reasons. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 101.

      Division No. 217]

      [6.52 pm

      AYES

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Haynes, Frank

      Beggs, Roy

      Ingram, Adam

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Boateng, Paul

      McNamara, Kevin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Dixon, Don

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Michael, Alun

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      1175

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Pike, Peter L.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Mr. William Ross and

      Ruddock, Joan

      Rev. William McCrea.

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Amess, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Amos, Alan

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Jack, Michael

      Atkinson, David

      Janman, Tim

      Batiste, Spencer

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Knapman, Roger

      Body, Sir Richard

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Boswell, Tim

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Bright, Graham

      Lord, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      McCrindle, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Maclean, David

      Carrington, Matthew

      Mans, Keith

      Chapman, Sydney

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Chope, Christopher

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Paice, James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Cran, James

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Curry, David

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Devlin, Tim

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Dover, Den

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Durant, Tony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Stern, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Favell, Tony

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Forman, Nigel

      Summerson, Hugo

      Forth, Eric

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Freeman, Roger

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Gow, Ian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Thorne, Neil

      Gregory, Conal

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Viggers, Peter

      Ground, Patrick

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Hague, William

      Walden, George

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Waller, Gary

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Harris, David

      Wells, Bowen

      Hayward, Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Wood, Timothy

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Hill, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

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

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Mr. J. M. Taylor.

      Howells, Geraint

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 32, leave out from 'provide' to end of line 38 and insert
      'for specified functions of the President (including functions under sections 6 and 17 of this Act) to be exercised in specified circumstances by a person appointed, in accordance with the regulations, to a panel of chairmen'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 4
      REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES
      Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 2.—[Mr. Viggers.]
    Clause 5

      TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 28, leave out paragraph (j).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 7.
      Mr. Viggers: The amendment honours a promise that I made to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) in Committee. It had always been our intention that the Fair Employment Tribunal would be expected to announce reasons for its decisions. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it should be specifically made a burden and responsibility for the tribunal. We are happy to include that in the Bill.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: It is not my intention to delay the House. I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments. We are grateful that the guarantee that he gave in Committee has been translated into amendments.
      Mr. Ashdown: I have no wish to detain the House either, but I should be grateful for a word from the Minister. Perhaps this is the appropriate time to ask a question. The Minister will recall that, when the Government published the White Paper, they said that people of standing in the community would be on the tribunal. I note that that has not been carried forward specifically into the Bill. A word of reassurance from the Minister might be helpful.
      Mr. William Ross: These are interesting amendments. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. He told the House that he was fulfilling a promise made in Committee, but that it was always the intention of the Government that reasons would be given by the tribunal. The Minister was extremely brief. When the tribunal is giving its reasons, I hope that it will not be as brief.
      Reasons could be given in one sentence, or they could take up half a book. On many occasions, brief explanations will suffice, but on many other occasions a fuller explanation will be needed. No doubt there will be cases under the legislation where the tribunal has to pass judgment. I hope that it will give a full explanation. That is not spelt out on the face of the Government amendments. Perhaps the Minister will go further and will open the door for a more expansive amendment to be moved in another place, specifying the sort of information that will be given, how full the explanation of the various reasons will be, what factors have been taken into account and whether the tribunal will be guided only by the evidence given to it or whether it will carry out further investigations which may change its opinion.
      In Northern Ireland, many rumours fly about. We would not want decisions to be taken on unsubstantiated allegations. When the tribunal is giving reasons, they should be soundly based in law and should be sufficiently detailed for everyone to understand why the tribunal reached its decision. We will not be put off by a bit of jiggery-pokery in the corner. We want the background to be explained and the tribunal to make it clear why it has come to a particular conclusion on each item.
      If tribunal members are divided in their opinion, the tribunal should have a duty to provide for minority reports

      1177
      so that the dissenting voice may be heard. This is a small amendment, but the Minister has treated it too lightly, as have Her Majesty's Opposition. If the amendment is tossed in out of the blue to meet a commitment, surely the Minister should give more than two sentences of explanation. We want a full explanation of what sort of written reasons will be provided for the public to assess and to take into account when the next case is coming before the tribunal.
      Mr. Viggers: It is important that there should be broad public confidence in the tribunal and the justice it provides. In setting out its reasons, the tribunal will provide a body of coherent and consistent case law which will build up and be available to employers and employees alike to work upon so that they may understand the workings of the tribunal.
      The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked about representation on the tribunal. We will seek broad representation from both employers and unions. I reaffirm that we will seek people of substance to sit on the tribunal.
      Rev. William McCrea: As the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, there is concern in the hearts and minds of people in the Province. In the past, many tribunals were appointed by the Government, and they usually had one political affiliation—the Alliance. It would be in the interests of the right hon. Member for Yeovil to ensure that matters continue in that way, because of his close association with that party. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that there will be wide political representation on the tribunal. If not, there will be favoured representation, as has happened in the past. I hope that the right hon. Member for Yeovil will associate himself with my remarks, because he would not—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will not press the matter any further. It is clearly outside the scope of the amendment.
      Rev. William McCrea: Your remark is interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was the substance of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Yeovil, and he was not called to order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is quite right; I was not quick enough. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman is saying should a similar occurrence arise again.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Tribunal shall give reasons for its decisions.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in, page 4, line 30, leave out from 'above' to end of line 36 and insert—

      '(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and

      (b) if without reasonble excuse the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 19, 21, 73, 37 to 41, 46 to 50 and 52 to 56.
      Mr. Viggers: The amendment introduces a new mechanism whereby any incremental fine will apply only from the date on which an employer is convicted of an offence rather than the date of the offence itself. We believe that to be fair.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: This is one occasion on which I join other hon. Members who wish that the Minister had spoken at greater length and in greater detail. If he had done so, I could have related my comments more closely to what he said.
      Contrary to the other Government amendments that have been passed, which, on the whole, we have supported, we regret that the Government have sought to introduce this series of amendments, which substantially weaken the Bill. I do not recall any hon. Member asking for such amendments at any stage of our proceedings. Why were the amendments put down, and from what quarter did the request come?
      7.15 pm
      An employer who fails to provide a monitoring return is subject to a per diem fine until he or she meets the requirements of the legislation. Government amendment No. 8 would restrict the per diem fines until after second conviction. That is a retrograde step, as the amendment would remove the immediate incentive for an employer who has committed an offence to comply with the law. If there is a breach of the legislation, employers should quickly compy with any demands placed upon them. The amendment would weaken that aspect of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister recognises that it will inevitably offer the opportunity for some employers to prevaricate, and also place a greater burden on enforcement bodies.
      We ask the Government to think again. It will surprise the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) that, contrary to their belief that there is bipartisan agreement, it is our intention to oppose Government amendment No. 8.
      Mr. William Ross: This is an important series of amendments, and it must be explored at some length. If we are to support the amendment, it should state rather more than the bland
      "not exceeding one tenth of level 5".
      Will the Minister be kind enough to translate that into pounds, shillings and pence—that reveals my age—so that we know what we are talking about?
      A firm going to Northern Ireland may transgress the law for any one of a hundred reasons, possibly as a result of ignorance of the demographic and religious spread of the population. That firm could find itself guilty of—
      Mr. Beggs: Bankrupt.
      Mr. Ross: As the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said, it could find itself bankrupt. The hon. Gentleman jumped the gun.
      We are trying to attract firms of all sizes to invest in all sorts of matters. People go along to the Industrial Development Board and they are given glossy promotional material, and are told of all the help that will be available. I wonder whether the complications that could arise from the legislation are sufficiently spelt out for

      1179
      incoming investors. Are officers in Government Departments in the I DB presently engaged in rewriting the glossy brochures? If not, it is about time someone started the job. In the interest of fairness, people should be informed not only of grants and help for firms investing in Northern Ireland, but of the pitfalls created by the Bill. They should be told exactly what position they will find themselves in.
      Suppose a small firm decides to set up a branch in Northern Ireland to do a vital part of its manufacturing process or to distribute its products in Northern Ireland, and it has nine employees of one religious denomination. The word "denomination" is incorrect. We are not talking about denominations; we are talking about one denomination—the Roman Catholic denomination. All the others are lumped together. A few are labelled "others". Presumably they would be of non-Christian extraction or non-practising Christians. If one who is born in Northern Ireland becomes an atheist, agnostic, Hindu or whatever, it is of no matter. Under the Bill, if one is born a Prod, one will remain a Prod until the day one dies. It is no good saying that one has changed one's religion. That will not wash. One will be labelled a Prod for the rest of one's days. There are children in my children's primary classes—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I see nothing in the amendments that has anything remotely to do with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We are discussing fines.
      Mr. Ross: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are a little too quick off the mark. We are discussing the consequences of the legislation. I am talking about a firm setting up a branch in Northern Ireland and employing 10 people. A week later it finds to its horror that nine of the 10 are adherents of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The firm, having employed those people in good faith, finds that, out of ignorance, it has transgressed the law.
      Much of the problem is due to the fact that we are not told what location is taken into account when the case reaches the tribunal or the Fair Employment Agency. It seems that geographical area will be established at the time of those proceedings. Contractors come to Ireland from England and hire workers from all over the place.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see what that has to do with the terms of the amendment, which is concerned with levels of fines. I hope that the hon. Member will address his remarks to the terms of the amendment.
      Mr. Ross: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply trying to protect investors in Northern Ireland from being fined.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will have to do that on a suitable later amendment. He cannot do it on the one that is now before the House.
      Mr. Ross: I am giving the Minister notice that, when people come to Northern Ireland to invest, they must be helped to avoid committing the offences of which we are speaking. The Minister will have to give them careful advice, drawing their attention to the consequences of this legislation. That must be done before they get a foot through the door. They, or those employing people on their behalf, could find themselves in prison or be fined
      1180
      "not exceeding level 5". I do not know whether the courts, in taking account of the circumstances, would impose a fine not exceeding level 1.
      Firms coming in, before employing people, should be given a sort of health warning—a bank account protection warning—and perhaps the Minister will give an assurance that such a warning will be placed on all relevant literature. People must be made aware that, if their work force is out of balance, they will be fined or pursued by one section of the community or another.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The amendment contains the phrase "if without reasonable excuse", which I should have thought related to the argument that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) adduced. Some hon. Members think that all jobs in Northern Ireland are open to all classes of the community. The roofing industry in Belfast has been in the hands of Roman Catholics for years. Is the House saying that in future those engaged in roofing must sack a certain number of Roman Catholics and employ a certain number of Protestants? [Interruption.] I have carefully read the Official Report of the Committee proceedings. For example, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) pointed out at that stage that not all things were equal because of the geographical structure and because certain types of employment were in the hands of certain religious people. In the old days in the shipyards—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going very wide of the amendment. I hope that he will address his remarks to the level of fines as mentioned in the amendment.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I draw your attention, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that we are talking about people having a reasonable excuse.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is using the phrase "without reasonable excuse" to apply to matters which are not the subject of the series of amendments before the House. The "reasonable excuse" provisions relate to specific matters, of which he is going wide. I hope that he will now address his remarks to the terms of the amendment and not to matters outside it to which the phrase "reasonable excuse" might apply.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Employers coming into Northern Ireland and breaching this law will be fined. It is reasonable not to proceed against such people immediately but to give them an opportunity to try to rectify the situation. Is it being suggested that firms coming to Northern Ireland will not be told anything about the fair employment laws applying there? Will they simply be told, "Go ahead and recruit your labour"?
      The Government have a duty to ensure that every prospective investor knows what he is up against so that he can make his decision on that basis. If people breach the legislation, they should be given an opportunity to put matters right. They should not be proceeded against immediately.
      That is what the amendment is about, and I am sorry to find myself on the side of the Government. I do not like to be on their side. This is reasonable because I want o see more employment in Northern Ireland. We do not have enough jobs. If we were overflowing with employment we would not need this legislation. The fact that there is a lack of jobs makes it necessary. The more jobs the better, and

      1181
      if employers come and put money into Northern Ireland, the Government must not act in a dictatorial manner against them. They should be given an opportunity to rectify what has gone wrong.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I support the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) because he and I in our respective parties play a modest part in persuading investors and companies to come to Northern Ireland, in my case from this side of the water and in his case from across the Atlantic. We would have it on our consciences if we brought them into a trap without prior warning.
      That is why the Minister must provide what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) called a health warning—I would call it an early warning—to alert them in clear and unambiguous language to the difficulties that they could face. That will enable them to take advice and decide, on commercial grounds, whether they can comply with the legislation. If they cannot comply with it, we will all be disappointed, but at least we will not feel that, through negligence, we have persuaded people, for the best of reasons, to walk into a trap that they had not foreseen.
      Mr. Viggers: I was brief in moving the amendment. Perhaps with some further explanation I will be able to persuade the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and his hon. Friends not to vote against the amendment; it is a reasonable amendment.
      The intention behind the amendments is to make provision for imposing on a defaulting emloyer an incremental fine for each day in which he fails to discharge the offence of which he has been convicted, and "convicted" is an important word in this context.
      A similar provision was included in the Bill at the appropriate places, but on carefully considering the matter, we in the Department decided that, in the interests of natural justice, the basic mechanism which had been provided was unfair. The general formula that we were using was on the lines set out in clause 35(8), where the incremental fine was applied for each day of noncompliance following the date stipulated by the commission in a notice of requirement—not a conviction, but a stipulation by the commission in a notice of requirement.
      In practical terms, therefore, an employer who failed to comply by the specified date and who, in the genuine belief that he had a reasonable excuse for his failure, wished to plead the defence provided by clause 35(9) could, if unsuccessful in that defence, find himself confronted with a large, even a massive, incremental fine the size of which owed more to the timing and duration of court proceedings than to the seriousness of the original offence.
      We are saying that interest should follow a conviction, and not the date stipulated by the commission. Mention was made of a "second conviction". There will be only one conviction. A date will be stipulated by the commission in the notice of requirement, but the matter will not appear before the court and will not be adjudged by a court until it comes up following an appeal against a notice by the commission.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South will feel that it is right that interest should follow the date of a conviction in a court and that an individual employer
      1182
      should not be penalised from a date stipulated by the commission. There could be genuine reasons for a delay between a date stipulated by the commission and a notice of requirement.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has referred to paragraph (b) in amendment No. 8, which says:
      "if without reasonable excuse the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine".
      Are we talking about conviction on two separate failures or is it two convictions in the same case, where the person has been convicted once, he has failed to comply and is convicted again on the same case?
      Mr. Viggers: There are, of course, two completely different sets of circumstances. There is the employer who has not been stated to be in default by the commission and who is before the courts for the first time, and an employer who has had a previous conviction. The employer who, following a conviction by the magistrates court, wilfully remains in default of his obligations will be liable to further proceedings in the magistrates court and, if convicted, will be penalised by the total of the daily fines which have occurred since the date of the original conviction.
      Further failures in compliance will be penalised in the same way by subsequent convictions until the employer finally discharges the offence. That mechanism is similar to that which applies to offences under companies legislation. It appears to be both consistent and appropriate to extend it to the offences created by the Bill. In this case, we have modelled ourselves on the similar legislation applying to companies, where the firms concerned could have substantial funds and it is necessary to have a substantial prospective fine available to ensure that companies comply with the law.
      On the matter of the first set of circumstances, we do not think it right that an employer, who has not at this stage been convicted, should be at penalty to a daily fine following the date stipulated by the commission in the notice of requirement. I hope that I have made that point clear. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South accepts that it is reasonable that we should regard individuals who have not been held guilty by a court as not being subject to daily penalties.
      The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) asked about the level 5 fine, which is currently £2,000, with a maximum fine per diem of £200. We are therefore talking about quite substantial amounts.
      Hon. Members have raised the question whether we advise prospective incoming investors about the fair employment legislation. I can tell them that we are scrupulous in doing so.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister said that he thought that he had made the position clear. I am sure that he has made it clear, but it is unfortunate that it is not clear to me. Perhaps my position would be better if I could say that I would consider the Minister's remarks and come back to him at a further stage. However, obviously that is inappropriate on Report.
      We indicated that, if a Division was called, we would vote against the Government amendment. However, in view of the Minister's response, I would say that it is not our intention to divide on the amendment, but we intend

      1183
      to consider the Minister's reply very carefully and, if necessary and possible, to pursue our argument in another place.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 4, line 43, leave out 'the reasons for the decision' and insert 'for communicating the reasons for the decision to any person to whom the Tribunal is required by the regulations to communicate them.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 6

      COMPLAINTS INVOLVING MATTERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
      Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 19 leave out from 'matters' to end of line 22 and insert
      'which would otherwise fall to be determined by an industrial tribunal could appropriately be heard and determined by the Tribunal, he may direct that those matters shall be so heard and determined'.— [Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 7

      CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
      Amendments made: No. 11, in page 5, line 37, leave out 'the promotion of and insert 'promoting'.
      No. 12, in page 5, line 43, leave out 'Fair Employment'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 13

      VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 9, line 11, leave out 'the promotion of' and insert 'promoting'.
      No. 14, in page 9, line 25, at end insert—
      '(5) Subsection (3) above does not apply in relation to an undertaking given by any of the authorities specified in subsection (1) of section 54 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, but where an undertaking given under this section by such an authority is not complied with the Commission shall send a report of the circumstances of the failure to comply with it to the person to whom a report under subsection (2) of that section following an investigation relating to the authority would be sent.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 16

      ORDER OF TRIBUNAL TO ENFORCE UNDERTAKING OR DIRECTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 11, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert
      'An application for the enforcement of directions shall not be made'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 17

      FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER OF TRIBUNAL
      Amendment made: No. 16, in page 12, line 42, at end insert—
      '(5A) If it appears to the Department that there has been a change in the value of money since the relevant date, it may by order substitute for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (3)(b) above such other sum as appears to it to be justified by the change.
      (5B) In subsection (5A) above 'the relevant date' means—

      (a) in relation to the first order under that subsection, the commencement of this section, and

      1184

      (b) in relation to each subsequent order, the last occasion when the sum specified in subsection (3)(b) above was altered.'.— [Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 21

      INTERPRETATION OF PART I
      Amendments made: No. 17, in page 15, line 42, leave out 'its promotion by means of'
      and insert 'the promotion of'.
      No. 18, in page 15, line 43, leave out 'the promotion of' and insert 'promoting'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 23

      EMPLOYERS TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATION
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 16, line 43, leave out from 'above' to end of line 48 and insert—

      '(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and

      (b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

      No. 20, in page 17, line 18, leave out '34' and insert '35'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 24

      RECTIFICATION OF THE REGISTER
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 17, line 27, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 31 and insert—
      '(2A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) above—

      (a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and

      (b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

      No. 22, in page 17, line 40, leave out '34' and insert '35'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 26
      CERTAIN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO BE TREATED AS EMPLOYERS
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 18, line 34, leave out '34' and insert '35'.—[Mr.Viggers.]
    Clause 27

      MONITORING RETURNS
      Amendments made: No. 24, in page 19, line 20, leave out 'in respect of that year'.
      No. 25, in page 19, line 28, leave out '34' and insert '35'.
      No. 26, in page 19, line 33, leave out
      'in respect of any year'.
      No. 73, in page 19, line 37, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 42 and insert—
      '(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) above—

      (a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and

      (b) if the failure to submit the monitoring return continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not

      1185
      exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 28

      REGULATIONS AS TO MONITORING
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 20, line 23, after 'regulations', insert
      `made after consultation with the Commission'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 28 to 30.
      Mr. Viggers: These four amendments all relate to different aspects of monitoring. In brief, amendment No. 27 fulfils a Committee stage undertaking to require the Department to consult the commission before making the monitoring regulations. Amendment No. 28 reflects a technical difference in the period of time to which monitoring returns dealing with employees and applicants relate. Amendment No. 29 allows the regulations flexibility to provide for different modes of monitoring classifications for different categories of employees. Amendment No. 30 provides that regulations may contain a requirement for an employer to use methods of monitoring other than the indirect "schools" question or the direct question.
      It is appropriate to give a few words of explanation on this group of amendments, especially amendment No. 30 which makes specific provision for an employer, when compiling a monitoring return, to use such sources of information as will enable him to compile a return with the greatest degree of accuracy. As drafted, clause 28 makes no reference as to how monitoring is to be conducted, or the sources which should be used. As was explained in the Department's "Guide to Effective Practice", and confirmed in the fair employment White Paper, the Government's preferred method was for employers to use an indirect method of obtaining information about a person's community background for purposes of monitoring. The advantages of using information about the schools attended by each employee were put forward in that connection. I need not rehearse again the benefits of this method in terms of making available to an employer a broad source of objective and verifiable information, but the Government's confidence in this method is undiminished.
      Nonetheless, it was also recognised that an employer might wish to use a direct approach to establishing community background, or might wish to have recourse to any other method which appeared appropriate and justifiable in the circumstances. The important consideration was to produce a monitoring return in whose accuracy he could have a high degree of confidence. For that reason, the Bill specified the objective of monitoring, but not the methodology to be used.
      Concerns were expressed in Committee, however, that the Bill did not make specific provision in this regard. To set the matter beyond doubt, therefore, we are bringing forward amendment No. 30 which does three things. It creates two classes of method—principal and residuary. It provides for a certain relationship between them, that is that the employer shall first use one of the two principal methods, and, if that does not lead to a determination, may use either the other principal method or a residuary
      1186
      method; and it gives, as it were, a worked example of how the regulations may set out principal and residuary methods. The amendment thus meets the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that it is essential for an employer to be able to use a back-up method to supplement the classifications arrived at by the principal method.
      This is an important point and one on which I am happy to meet the Opposition's concerns. In the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, factual information such as home address, membership of clubs or societies, the name and occupation of any referee used in connection with an application for employment and even sporting pursuits may all provide very strong inferential evidence as to the community background of an individual. Amendment No. 30 makes specific provision for such information—now referred to as "the residuary method"—to be taken into account in the compiling of monitoring returns. This is a complicated matter, but I hope that I have set the scene for the discussion of the amendment.
      The Opposition have raised some concern about the draft of the amendment tabled on residuary monitoring. In brief, their concern is that it is not clear from the wording whether an employer who obtains misleading information from his work force about the extent to which they are Catholics or Protestants through the use of the direct question will be able to fall back on the residuary methodology to provide a more accurate monitoring return. In fact, the amendment does not allow for this. While the residuary method may be used where the work force provide a response to the direct question which suggests that they are "Christian", "Moslem" or "Other", this is not possible where they falsely declare themselves to be either Protestant or Catholic. In the former case, the information provided does not allow the employer to make an adequate determination and he may therefore fall back on either the indirect question or a residuary method to fulfil his obligation to make a monitoring return. In the latter case, however, he can only make assumptions about the accuracy of the attribution of "Catholic" or "Protestant" thrown up by the responses from the work force and he does have a "determination" as required by the legislation. It would be extremely difficult to provide in the Bill for the exercise of judgment by the employer as to when he might utilise the residuary method in such circumstances.
      We do, therefore, recognise that the Opposition have a point and we believe that it might be addressed by providing for the commission to investigate dubious returns and to substitute their assessment for the return if the doubt is confirmed. The code of practice, moreover, might encourage employers who have doubts about the accuracy of their returns to bring these to the attention of the Commission.
      This is a difficult issue and we are conscious of the need to ensure that monitoring returns are as accurate as possible. Therefore, consideration is being given to the matter and, if appropriate, an amendment will be brought forward in the other place.
      Mr. McNamara: I am obliged to the Minister for the amendment and for his comments on residual monitoring, which was a matter of concern to us. As I understand it, it was originally hoped that the regulations would deal with the monitoring, but it was always possible that the regulations would be ruled ultra vires. Therefore, I am

      1187
      extremely grateful to the Minister that we can put this matter behind us as we now have adequate monitoring provisions. We will also have suitable methods to ensure that there can be no dubiety about the returns made.
      Until amendments were tabled, the original system placed an intolerable burden on the employer. An employer was compelled to make a return, but he might have done so knowing that it was false, but to make a false return also carried a penalty. Therefore, he was in a Catch 22 situation. I believe that we have now properly sought to protect the position of the employer in such cases, and that is important.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) moved an amendment to ensure that the commission was also concerned about the nature and the draft of the regulations, and we supported that amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down may wish to make his own contribution, but I want to say that I am obliged to the Government for what they have done.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman keeps on referring to his "hon. Friend the Member for South Down". It would be relevant to our discussions if the hon. Gentleman told us whether he considers the hon. Member for South Down his hon. Friend on religious grounds, Irish nationalist grounds, or Socialist grounds.
      Mr. McNamara: I would hope on all three grounds. I also welcome him as my hon. Friend on the ground of being humankind. I would like to think that all people are my friends and my brothers and sisters. I was merely illustrating that my hon. Friend the Member for South Down moved an amendment with which I agreed. On occasions the Government have moved amendments with which I agreed, but other than being brothers in kind I certainly do not believe that they are members of the Socialist International and, therefore, my brothers. There were occasions this afternoon, however, when the Secretary of State was answering questions on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and I thought that I had almost recruited the right hon. Gentleman to that group.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. McGrady: I should like to record my thanks to the Minister for honouring his promise to consult with the commission when drawing up the rules and regulations for the code of conduct.
      Mr. Ashdown: The Minister will be aware that we expressed on Second Reading some concern about monitoring. I am delighted that the Government have taken account of those concerns and, in what is clearly a thoughtful conclusion to those deliberations, have produced something with which it would be difficult to disagree.
      The Minister has said that he believes that the system proposed in amendment No. 30 will be accurate and fair, but it is also important to make it flexible. There is no doubt that other developments will take place in Northern Ireland and with, I hope, the development of integrated schools, the school attended by the prospective employee will not necessarily be a guide to his or her religious background. It is commendable that the Government have done much to encourage the development of such schools,
      1188
      but as that system grows apace, judging people's religious background on the basis of the school attended may no longer be appropriate.
      I hope that the Government will keep a close eye on the monitoring so that they will be able to fine-tune it to respond to the new developments which we hope to see. How will such monitoring affect those who come from the growing number of integrated schools in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. William Ross: The working people of Northern Ireland have described this system to me as the most offensive demand that has ever been put on them by an employer. If the Ministers of the Northern Ireland Office or the would-be Ministers on the Opposition Front Bench do not believe me, they should talk to the ordinary worker on the factory floor or any other employee in Northern Ireland and ask them what they think about the snooping into their private religious lives. Those workers will tell them that they consider it extremely offensive, as each and every Member of this House would so consider it if they were in a similar position. The Government appear more than willing to ignore the workers' feelings.
      We are now being told that if an employer cannot easily find out to which religious grouping—it is either Roman Catholic or "Other"—an employee belongs, he must then make careful private inquiries as to what church he attends or what he attended as a child or was baptised in. Presumably employers will not be allowed to inquire whether the individual is still a practising member of the faith. In Great Britain, church-going is not as popular as it once was. Church attendance and the level of commitment to any Christian church in Northern Ireland vary enormously from area to area. I suspect that that intensity of commitment is not equal in any religious denomination.
      There are many people in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, who grow up and leave their church to become agnostics or atheists, non-believers, or become members of other religions, pagan religions, but for all their life they will be labelled nice and neatly Protestant or Roman Catholic. That label will be attached to them whether or not they still adhere to that religion, whether or not they practise that religion and whether or not they change their religion. It is very offensive to me and, as I have already said, it is very offensive to most of the work force of whatever religion in Northern Ireland.
      There is a demand which runs like a river right through this legislation that the perception of the religious grouping to which an individual belongs shall be the label that is attached to that individual. I want merely to say to the House—not that it will do any good—that that label is permanent and is not necessarily accurate. In this as in so many other matters, the reality may be different from the public perception.
      It is easy where I live, in a mixed rural community, for me to identify the religious denomination to which many people belong. I do not have to ask. I know where they live, and I know their fathers, their grandfathers and their children. Some of those people have names which make them look as if they should be Irish Roman Catholics but they turn out to be Anglican Catholics. They have names which might well indicate, since they are English, Scottish or Welsh names, that they should belong to one of the many Protestant denominations. But they do not because their forefathers come to Ireland—[Interruption.] Would

      1189
      my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev William McCrea) agree with me that one would hardly believe that someone with the name Adams was the leader of the Provisional IRA? The same, of course, is true of McGuinness. Morrison is clearly a Northern Irish name.
      Rev. William McCrea: Or Ashdown
      Mr. Ross: Yes, and no doubt there are Ashdowns there yet—and I hope they have better politics than the right hon. Member for Yeovil. This is a nasty, double-sided piece of legislation. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he has forgotten far too much about Northern Ireland and should go back to his roots and make some inquiries of those who still live there.
      We are about to move fully and firmly into the process of head-counting by perception of religious denomination, of enforcing an arrangement on the basis of some unknown criteria as to what the work force distribution between those religions should be in every place of employment in Northern Ireland. We shall be labelling people with a religion which they may have deserted or may no longer practise. We shall be labelling people by politics, which they may have changed. We talk here of community, not religion, but the reality is that we are talking about the religious adherence, or the perception of the religious adherence, of each worker.
      One of the methods to be used to try to determine the religion is based on sporting affiliations. I find that strange because I know that the Gaelic Athletic Association, for instance, labels soccer a foreign game. I do not think that opinion is widely shared among the community which normally plays GAA games, where one sees many young Roman Catholics play soccer. It is probably the favourite sporting recreation in Northern Ireland, as it is elsewhere in these islands.
      Rev. William McCrea: But they behave themselves.
      Mr. Ross. I think their behaviour in international matches on that side of the water is of a standard which many football clubs over here could aim for but which few of them achieve.
      Sport is supposed to be a healing function, something that draws a community together into one great, happy group. Here we are proposing to find out that somebody plays soccer so he is a Prod from the Shankill or he would not play soccer.
      Rev. William McCrea: Or a Prod from the Bogside.
      Mr. Ross: He could very well be; they have a very successful team in Londonderry at the moment. He could even be from South Armagh; he could be from any place in Northern Ireland, and he could be of any religion or of none.
      I fail to see how any sane person or group of persons could be so misled as to present this legislation as being healing or helpful. It is exactly the opposite, and the fact that the Government have chosen to introduce it only illustrates how vast is the canyon between their perception and the reality of life in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Viggers: Three specific points have been raised during this short debate.
      The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked whether the monitoring arrangements would be
      1190
      flexible. Detailed arrangements for monitoring will be made by regulations and will be capable of amendment in the light of experience.
      The right hon. Gentleman also asked about integrated schools. Integrated schools are not classified as either Catholic or Protestant in the guide. If, as he suggests and indicates that he hopes—as I do—there are larger numbers of integrated schools in the future, account will be taken of that and it will have a significant effect on the monitoring in due course.
      Mr. Beggs: One factor that has never been stressed and made absolutely clear is the degree of integration that has already taken place in voluntary grammar schools. Many pupils in voluntary grammar schools throughout the country could be mislabelled. That must be made clear and corrected, if possible.
      Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) criticised the monitoring regime very well, but it is not difficult to criticise arrangements such as those we put forward because it is not easy to create a formula that is conducive to an improvement in the relationships between Protestants and Roman Catholics as far as job opportunities in Northern Ireland are concerned. But I have the opportunity of moving around Northern Ireland a great deal and talking to a large number of employers and employee representatives and, although there are many who are apprehensive and concerned about our proposals, the best employers regard the proposals in the Bill as totally containable within good personnel practice. They see no difficulty in implementing the monitoring regime. Many of them have done so already and they can live with it. I congratulate them and am sure that many will follow them.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: We are dealing with a matter of great seriousness—the investigation of a person's religious beliefs and the attempt to put a person into a particular category. There has been a degree of deception already by employers in producing a document with at the head of it, "as approved by the Fair Employment Agency" and in the demand in that document that one fills in one's religion. The Minister knows that under European law no Government have any right to say that a person must tell them his religion, so we have in this amendment a way round that. The way to breach it is to try to find a way to assess a person's religion.
      The Minister put out a booklet which was widely circulated and in which Roman Catholic schools appeared as Protestant state schools. What would happen if an employer looked at that booklet and said, "He belongs to that school, he must be a Protestant," but the pupil was a Roman Catholic? There are Roman Catholic schools within the state system. That booklet is still being used by employers in Northern Ireland.
      8 pm
      The leader of the Democrats had better know that it will be a long time before the vast majority of children have been educated in integrated schools. The Roman Catholic Church has its own view on that, as it is entitled to do. It wants its children to be brought up in that faith. My view is different. I believe that if the Government were acting properly, they would say that it was all right for anyone to run his own school, but he must pay for it, and

      1191
      that the one state school would be an integrated one, at which anyone was welcome. Of course, there are divisions about that in Northern Ireland. This Government, or any Government, would not have the guts to take such a decision, and, therefore, we must leave that issue.
      We are entering a different realm—not involving schooling—in which someone is to snoop around to find out what a man does after he goes home and has his supper, what club he goes to and in what recreation he engages. Who is going to do that? Will employers have to employ a sort of private detective to ascertain the religion of their employees? In Northern Ireland, nothing will lead to friction on the work floor more quickly than such a policy, which would not be tolerated on this side of the water. If such legislation were being introduced on this side of the water, what uproar we would have from both sides of the House. However, hon. Members are now saying that the employer must go further.
      What about the employer who does his very best, carries out all his duties, but, at the end, is deceived? An employer might put down a number of workers as Protestant when they were Roman Catholic, or as Roman Catholic when they were Protestant. What happens then? Will he be liable for that? That is the question that the Minister should answer tonight. If the employer gets it wrong, having done everything to get it right, will he be penalised? That is an important point, which, in all fairness the Minister should answer. It is difficult to distinguish by names.
      What are the quotas for people who do not term themselves Roman Catholic or Protestant? Are they to be left out in the cold? Where do they fit in to this scheme of employment if they are outside the Protestant or Roman Catholic grouping? The Minister must tell us how the difficulties are to be counteracted.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman is skirting around the edge of another problem involving the wide diversity of opinion that exists in the Protestant community. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about being lumped in with the Feakle clergy, and as being within the same large Protestant group?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman knows my attitude on that point.
      If the Government get it wrong by giving out literature which says that Protestant schools are Roman Catholic and that Roman Catholic schools are Protestant, what will happen to the poor employer who goes by those guidelines? The Government will wash their hands clean and take it out on the employer. Those matters are relatively unimportant to the Minister, who merely wipes his hands and gives us a brief answer. However, we will have to reap the results of the legislation.
      Mr. Beggs: There is very real concern in work places in Northern Ireland that, for the first time, sectarianism has been directly introduced in the workplace. The Minister could testify to the excellent working relationships in industry and commerce that have existed during the 20 years of troubles in Northern Ireland. He could testify to the fact that irrespective of their religion, or from which part of the Province they travel to work, people have got on amicably; goods have been delivered on time and there have been good relations all round.
      Regrettably, there is now a danger that, with such close monitoring, individuals will start head counting and
      1192
      looking closely at promotions and how they are taking place. The irony is that, because of the legislation. one Minister will be seen to be guilty of introducing sectarianism, while his colleague endeavours to promote daily the expansion and further development of integrated education.
      For the sake of all employers in Northern Ireland, I hope that the Minister will recognise that both the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland and the Retail Consortium, representing many employers in Northern Ireland, are not opposed to the fair employment legislation or the Bill's overall objective. However, they have concerns about monitoring. The Retail Consortium has said that it wants the Fair Employment Commission, which is to be established by the Bill, to play a constructive and understanding role in co-operating with, and assisting, employers to meet their monitoring obligations. It also states:
      "Moreover, it must produce guidelines that are fair not only to job applicants, but also fair to employers. The agency should, therefore, seek to achieve a balance between the circumstances of the job applicant and the needs of the reasonable fair-minded employer. The benefits enjoyed through an enterprise economy are too valuable to he risked by unclear or unreasonable obligations upon employers, and if this was to happen it would be all the community in Northern Ireland that would suffer."
      I hope that the Minister will be able to say that further consideration has been given to representations made by the CBI in Northern Ireland which wants the Bill to make it the commission's duty to monitor the labour market as a whole, not simply employers. Can the Minister say what steps will be taken by the commission to give employers confidence by ensuring that its own employees act professionally at all times, the leaking of confidential information will be prevented and, when investigations are carried out, there will not be unusually long delays in publishing their results because they have simply failed to prove that there was no discrimination against Roman Catholics?
      I know that, for example, at the GEC factory in Lame, many inquiries have been carried out by the Fair Employment Agency. People have been waiting for months and months for the outcome of the report. The results will probably be too good to publish. They will probably show that there is no discrimination in my area either, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).
      Will the Minister persuade the Government to extend the scope and life of the fair employment support scheme and reduce the burden on business of the fair employment legislation'? It would show the commitment of Northern Ireland employers if the Minister could say how many Northern Ireland companies have registered for the scheme, and are likely to be assisted with the costs of the first round of monitoring of returns and employers' reviews, as required by the Bill.
      Rev. William McCrea: Some hon. Members are sitting here rather smugly. That is probably why they have not much to say about the Bill: they are not much concerned about what will be seen in Northern Ireland as legitimised sectarianism. This is a serious departure from the British concept of democracy—worthy of Soviet Russia rather than the Government of the United Kingdom. It is proposed that our employers should play the role of Mr. Snoopy—or Miss Snoopy.

      1193
      In the town where I live, which is shared between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), is a school known as the Rainey Endowed school, which has had an excellent education record for many years. A couple of years ago the Roman Catholic Church decided that its children should no longer be educated at a school which, although it was not described as an integrated school, was integrated in reality: Roman Catholics and Protestants worked side by side, and came out with an education second to none. Many went on to Oxford or Cambridge, and indeed further, carrying the flag of Magherafelt across the world.
      Despite the decision of the Roman Catholic Church, a number of Catholic parents decided not to take their children away; but the Minister's document will call the Rainey Endowed a Protestant school, and anyone who writes on the form that he went there will be regarded as Protestant. That is what the statistics will say: the Government have legitimised something that is not true.
      My child goes to that school, and I know that a number of Roman Catholics have decided that Protestants and Catholics can be educated together without animosity. But, according to the Minister, when a pupil of that school comes to seek employment and is asked what school he attends, the Minister's document will tell the employer that he is a Protestant, because he has written on the form that he went to the Rainey Endowed school. That is not only misleading but completely untrue—and the stamp of approval has been put on that untruth by the Department of Economic Development in the Northern Ireland Office.
      Other children at the school have Pakistani or Indian backgrounds, but according to the Minister's document they belong to the Protestant community because they attend a Protestant school—not a school where everyone is welcome and a number of faiths are represented, along with those who desire to belong to no faith.
      Can a person not decide for himself whether he wants to belong to a faith? Can someone brought up in a Church of Ireland home and sent to a certain type of school not decide, when he is of an age to find a job, that he does not want to belong to the Protestant faith? Have such people no rights? They may have no desire to be connected with a particular religious persuasion. The legislation is a complete denial of people's right to make decisions for themselves.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. William Ross: Would not my hon. Friend be wiser to concentrate on the Model school in Londonderry, which is a primary school? I fear that the Minister will try to get out of the case that my hon. Friend is making by pointing out its reference to secondary rather than primary schools. The Model school is a primary school whose religious make-up is about 50:50.
      Rev. William McCrea: That is an excellent example of what the Minister and his Department will call a Protestant state school, although 50 per cent. of those who attend it are Roman Catholic. They have a right to attend. The state schools are not Protestant schools; they are open to everyone to gain an education with no religious tag attached.
      1194
      The form will also ask what sport the applicant plays. What the Department is really trying to find out is which foot he kicks with. Depending on what sport he plays, he is a right footer or a left footer.
      Ministers will give a smug answer to many of the harsh realities that I have uttered, but I hope that much of what has been done to the community in Northern Ireland will come home when the ethnic communities on this side of the water wake up to what legislation can do for them. Perhaps neither the Government nor the Opposition Front Bench will be white then. Chickens will come home to roost; and no one will enjoy it more than the people who have suffered at the hands of those who are trying to force sectarianism on the people of Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) knows the truth about workplaces in Northern Ireland. So does the Minister: he said that he had been talking to employers. Will he tell us whether they agree that Protestant and Roman Catholic work side by side to achieve a quality of production that many firms on this side of the water long for?
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 4.

      Division No. 218]

      [8.19 pm

      AYES

      Amos, Alan

      Howells, Geraint

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Hume, John

      Ashby, David

      Ingram, Adam

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Jack, Michael

      Atkinson, David

      Janner, Greville

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Beith, A. J.

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Boateng, Paul

      Knapman, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Bright, Graham

      Lawrence, Ivan

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

      Lightbown, David

      Burns, Simon

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Butterfill, John

      Lord, Michael

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Carrington, Matthew

      McCrindle, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      McGrady, Eddie

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Maclean, David

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cran, James

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Devlin, Tim

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Dixon, Don

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Dover, Den

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Durant, Tony

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dykes, Hugh

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Favell, Tony

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Skinner, Dennis

      Forman, Nigel

      Stern, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Stevens, Lewis

      Freeman, Roger

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Gregory, Conal

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hague, William

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Harris, David

      Vaz, Keith

      Haynes, Frank

      Viggers, Peter

      Hayward, Robert

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Walden, George,

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

      Waller, Gary

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      1195

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Wells, Bowen

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. Michael Fallon.

      Wood, Timothy

      NOES

      Beggs, Roy

      McCrea, Rev William

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Peter Robinson and

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Mr. William Ross.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 20, line 38, leave out
      `the period to which the'
      and insert
      `the date or period to which any'.
      No. 29, in page 21, line 23, leave out from second
      `different' to end of line 24 and insert 'cases'.
      No. 30, in page 21, line 25, leave out 'but this subsection does' and insert—
      `(3) The regulations may authorise or require the employer to determine which community if any a person employed or applying for employment in the concern is to be treated as belonging to for the purposes of monitoring by applying the principal method, or one of the principal methods, prescribed or, where that method does not enable him to make that determination or, as the case may be, none of those methods enables him to make that determination, by applying the residuary method, or one of the residuary methods, prescribed; so that, for example—

      (a) where an applicant—

      (i) has stated that he attended a particular primary school, being a school classified in any list maintained by virtue of subsection (2)(h) above as a school attended mainly by members of a particular community, or

      (ii) has stated that he belongs to a particular community,

      the employer may be required to determine that he is to be treated as belonging to the community concerned, and

      (b) where, in any case not within paragraph (a) above, the employer has information about the applicant, being information which the employer is authorised by the regulations to take into account as tending to show that the person to whom it relates has a connection with a particular community, the employer may be required to determine the community to which the applicant is to be treated as belonging by reference to that information.

      (4) Subsections (2) and (3) above do'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 30

      PERIODIC REVIEWS BY EMPLOYERS
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 22, line 11, leave out from 'concern' to end of line 15 and insert—
      `(1A) In a case where it appears to the employer in the course of the review that members of a particular community are not enjoying, or are not likely to continue to enjoy, such participation, he shall as part of the review determine the affirmative action (if any) which would be reasonable and appropriate.
      (1B) In a case where the employer determines in the course of the review that affirmative action would be reasonable and appropriate he shall as part of the review—

      (a) consider whether, assuming the action is taken, it is practicable to determine, by reference to one or more periods, the progress towards fair participation in employment in the concern that can reasonably be expected to be made by members of a particular community, and

      (b) if he considers that it is practicable to determine such progress, determine the period or periods concerned and, in respect of each period, the progress that, in his opinion, can reasonably be expected to be made by members of the community concerned in relation to the composition of—

      1196

      (i) those employed in the concern in Northern Ireland or those whose employment in the concern in Northern Ireland begins after the determination, and

      (ii) those applying for such employment.'.—[Mr.Viggers.]

    Clause 31

      ENQUIRIES BY THE COMMISSION
      Amendments made: No. 32, in page 22, line 45, leave out from 'review' to end of line 4 on page 23 and insert—
      `(b) as to any determination under subsection (1A) of section 30 of this Act, and
      (c) in a case falling within subsection (1B) of that section, as to his consideration of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection and any determination under paragraph (b) of that subsection.'.
      No. 33, in page 23, line 5, leave out
      `any such matter as is referred to in subsection (3)(b) above' and insert
      'that members of a particular community are not enjoying, or are not likely to continue to enjoy, fair participation in employment in the concern'.
      No. 34, in page 23, line 7, at end insert
      `and as to the matters referred to in subsection (1B)(a) of section 30 of this Act and any determination under subsection (1B)(b) of that section.
      (4A) Where the employer discloses to the Commission under this section a determination to take any affirmative action, the Commission may from time to time require him to give the Commission such information as it may specify as to the affirmative action that he has taken or proposes to take, but the Commission may not require an employer to give any information under this subsection before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with—

      (a) the date of the disclosure, or

      (b) if he has previously been required to give any information under this subsection, the date on which he was last required to do so.

      (4B) Where the employer discloses to the Commission under this section any determination under section 30(1B)(b) of this Act, the Commission may from time to time require him to give the Commission such information as it may specify for the purpose of determining the extent to which the progress that the employer determined could reasonably be expected to be made in any period has been made on the date of the requirement, but the Commission may not require an employer to give any information under this subsection before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with—

      (a) the date of the disclosure, or

      (b) if he has previously been required to give any information under this subsection, the date on which he was last required to do so.'.

      No 35, in page 23, line 12, leave out 'a' and insert
      `the reference in subsections (4A) and (4B) above to the date of the requirement is to the date on which the notice was served.
      (5A) A'.
      No. 36, in page 23, line 13, leave out 'that' and insert `any'.
      No. 37, in page 23, line 17, leave out from 'time' to end of line 18.
      No. 38, in page 23, line 19, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 20 and insert—
      '(6A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) above—

      (a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and

      (b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

      1197
      No. 39, in page 23, line 21, leave out from 'under' to second `to' in line 22 and insert 'subsection (6) above'.
      No. 40, in page 23, line 24, leave out
      'that requirement by that time'
      and insert
      'the requirement by the specified time'.
      No. 41, in page 23, line 30, at end insert—
      '(8) A person required to give any information under this section who knowingly gives any false or misleading information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 35

      NOTICES ABOUT GOALS AND TIMETABLES
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 25, line 23, leave out from 'under' to 'or' in line 28 and insert
      'Part I of this Act to take any action,
      (b) he has been directed under that Part to take any action'.
      No. 43, in page 25, line 31, leave out from 'action' to end of line 32.
      No. 44, in page 25, line 33, at beginning insert
      'being action appearing to the Commission to be affirmative action'.
      No. 45, in page 26, line 3, leave out from 'him' to 'the Commission" in line 7 and insert
      'the notice shall cease to have effect—

      (a) if the Tribunal makes an order for the purpose of giving effect to the undertaking or directions or, in the case of directions, the Tribunal or the Commission substitutes for them or any of them other directions, or

      (b) in the case of directions, if they, or such of them as the notice relates to, are quashed or otherwise cease to have effect, or

      (c) in the case of an undertaking, if it, or such part of it as the notice relates to, ceases to have effect,

      but without prejudice, in a case within paragraph (a) above, to any power to give a new notice.
      (4) Where a notice about goals and timetables has effect'.
      No. 46, in page 26, line 24, leave out from 'time' to end of line 25.
      No. 47, in page 26, line 27, leave out from 'above' to end of line 32 and insert—

      '(a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and

      (b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

      No. 48, in page 26, line 33, leave out from 'under' to second `to' in line 34 and insert 'subsection (7) above'.
      No. 49, in page 26, line 36, leave out
      'that requirement by that time'
      and insert
      'the requirement by the specified time'.
      No. 50, in page 26, line 42, at end insert—
      '(10) A person required to give any information under this section who knowingly gives any false or misleading information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.[Mr.Viggers.]

    Clause 39

      RESTRICTION ON EXECUTION OF WORKS, ETC. BY UNQUALIFIED PERSONS
      Amendment made: No. 51, in page 30, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'Northern Ireland' and insert
      1198
      'by the Secretary of State, by the Department or, after consultation with the Department, by any other'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 43

      ADDITIONAL POWERS OF COMMISSION TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
      Amendments made: No. 52, in page 31, line 43, leave out from 'time' to end of line 44.
      No. 53, in page 31, line 45, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 46 and insert—
      '(3A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above—

      (a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and

      (b) if the failure continues after conviction, is liable on a second or subsequent summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of level 5 on the standard scale for each day on which the failure continues.'.

      No. 54, in page 32, line 1, leave out from 'under' to second `to' in line 2 and insert 'subsection (3) above'.
      No. 55, in page 32, line 4, leave out
      'that requirement by that time'
      and insert
      'the requirement by the specified time'.
      No. 56, in page 32, line 10, at end insert—
      '(4A) A person required to give any information under this section who knowingly gives any false or misleading information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Clause 44

      PROCEDURE IN CASE OF DEFAULT BY CROWN BODIES
      Amendments made: No. 57, in page 32, line 21, after '31' insert '35'.
      No. 58, iii page 32, line 22, at end insert—
      'and, accordingly, sections 32(3), 33 and 40 do not apply in relation to such a public authority.'.—[Mr.Viggers.]

    Clause 45

      INTERPRETATION OF PART II
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move, amendment No. 59, in page 33, line 18, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Department may by order amend the definition of "employee" in subsection (1) above by substituting for the number of hours for the time being specified in paragraph (a) such other number as is specified in the order.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 67 and 68.
      Mr. Viggers: The amendment empowers the Department to vary the number of hours in the definition of "employee" by order exercisable by statutory rule subject to affirmative resolution procedure in the Northern Ireland assembly and, thus, to negative resolution at Westminster during direct rule. This is in response to an undertaking I gave in Committee and I hope that the House will support it.
      Ms. Mowlam: I should like to put on record the fact that we are pleased that the Government have met the request that we made in Committee. This is a particular problem in relation to part-time workers, the majority of whom are women. We are pleased that the Minister listened to our arguments.
      Mr. McCrady: I should like to thank the Minister for making the provision capable of revision. It is vital to a substantial number of employees in Northern Ireland, such as home helps in the Health Service, hospital cleaners and part-time farmers. A considerable amount of the employment in Northern Ireland is short term. I hope that there will be careful monitoring by the Department of the requisite number of hours—16. I hope that that will be revised if it is found that many people who may be subject to discrimination are outside the scope of the Act simply because they work only 12 or 15 hours. I hope that the Minister will undertake to bring about a speedy revision if it is found to be necessary.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 47

      MEANING OF "DISCRIMINATION"
      Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 35, line 11, leave out 'requirement or condition' and insert
      `requirement, condition, policy or practice'.
      This matter arose in Committee and it is important and technical. Our arguments can be found by hon. Members if they look at the appropriate point in the Committee proceedings.
      The purpose of the amendment is to tighten the provision dealing with indirect discrimination to deal with the problems thrown up by recent developments in case law in anti-discrimination legislation. At present, a complainant can prove a case of indirect discrimination only if he can show that the barrier that has prevented him from securing the post in question is a "requirement or condition". That could be interpreted by the courts in such a way as to include "policy or practice", thus rendering the amendment superfluous.
      However, case law suggests that the courts interpret such provisions in a narrow way. Two well known cases—Meer and Pereira—have been dealt with in the Court of Appeal. In both cases a narrow interpretation has been applied by which, in order to show indirect discrimination, the complainant must show that the behaviour of the employer against whom he is complaining constitutes an absolute bar to the complainant's employment. Anything less is not indirect discrimination.
      In practice, that means that an employer could decide to exercise a preference in favour of people who are not residents of west Belfast, east Belfast or Magherafelt. As long as the preference was not an absolute ban on the employment of people from those places, it would be legal. The amendment would ensure that such preferences were included in the definition of indirect discrimination.
      A further point must be made which was not made in Committee. When the Court of Appeal was discussing the Meer case it made its decision on the understanding that legislative change would be forthcoming. The case was partially argued on the basis of forthcoming legislative change and the court stated that the case required Parliament to act.
      The Government's main objection to the amendment is that it would change the definition of indirect discrimination and, therefore, has obvious implications for Britain's sex and race legislation. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Government have promised to introduce an amendment which, while not changing the
      1200
      definition of indirect discrimination, will assist the Fair Employment Commission in dealing with employers who adopt dubious practices which fall short of indirect discrimination.
      The full argument on that case is contained in paragraphs 623 and 624—pages 57 and 58—of SACHR's report. I will not weary the House by quoting that extensively. However, the case law is well argued and can be seen. I would be happy to introduce it into the debate if I felt that it would command the attention of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members.
      It will be nonsense if we have a phrase in the code of practice saying that certain practices must not be used in terms of employment when seeking to engage new workers which, if challenged before an industrial tribunal, would have to be upheld on the basis of Court of Appeal decisions. That is not what the Government or the Opposition want. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider the matter carefully. It would be terrible if, as was once said by one of my hon. Friends, the barrel of honey was ruined for a penn'orth of tar.
      Mr. Viggers: I will not rehearse the arguments that have been the subject of discussion and correspondence between the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and myself. I understand the point he makes. We are contemplating the possibility of introducing an amendment which would operate on the following lines. It would place a duty on the commission to follow proceedings of all individual cases before the tribunal. It would give the commission the discretion to form an opinion, following its analysis of an individual case, that the respondent might fail to afford equality of opportunity. It would give the commission a discretionary power to inform the respondent concerned of its opinion that he should take action to promote equality of opportunity and provide, as with clause 13, that any person so informed may give a written and voluntary undertaking to the commission to take the appropriate action.
      This proposal, which responds to suggestions by the Opposition, is still being considered and it is a very technical matter. It seems to have the merit of placing the key function of recommending action in the area of equality of opportunity on the commission rather than running the risk of compromising the tribunal's appellate role in pattern and practice cases by placing it on the tribunal. Moreover, the result is the same in that the employer is placed on notice that in the opinion of the commission certain action is necessary to promote equality, irrespective of the outcome of the individual's discrimination case.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this matter is being considered and that we will take full account of the points that he has just made. We shall seek to bring forward some words which will take account of this fact if we are able to meet the points in the other place.
      Mr. McNamara: I am obliged to the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 48

      COMPLAINTS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 38, line 13, leave out from 'exceed' to end of line 15 and insert `£30,000'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 90 and 91.
      Mr. Viggers: There has been concern that the limit of £8,925 on compensation payable by the tribunal in individual cases of religious discrimination is too restrictive and a flaw in the Bill. By way of response to these concerns, the Government's amendment increases the limit that the tribunal can order from £8,925 to £30,000.
      As hon. Members will be aware, the new Fair Employment Tribunal is modelled closely on the existing industrial tribunal structure and, as such, it attracted the maximum level of fine for discrimination available under the industrial tribunal mechanism£8,925. However, it was pointed out in Committee that such a figure, particularly since it represented a maximum level of compensation, could well deter individuals from bringing cases of discrimination given the unique sensitivities which attach to the issue of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland.
      We therefore considered uprating the £8,925 limit to a level equivalent to that already set in the Bill for failure to comply with orders of the tribunal. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for putting this idea forward. I am pleased to say that 1 accept the rationale of the amendment. The other two amendments provide for the Department by order to change the figure of £30,000 to take account of a change in the value of money.
      Mr. William Ross: We seem to be increasing the sum in the amendment while leaving aside the sums in article 37 of the Industrial Relations Order 1976. I am not clear about whether those sums will be increased by a like amount.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 90, in page 38, line 46, at end insert—
      '(9) If it appears to the Department that there has been a change in the value of money since the relevant date, it may by order substitute for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (4) such other sum as appears to it to be justified by the change.
      (10) In subsection (9) "the relevant date" means—

      (a) in relation to the first order under that subsection, the commencement of section 48 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, and

      (b) in relation to each subsequent order, the last occasion when the sum specified in subsection (4) was altered.

      (11) A statutory rule containing an order under subsection (9) shall be subject to negative resolution; and section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (meaning of "subject to negative resolution" shall apply as if the power to make the order were conferred by a Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.
      No. 60, in page 39, line 47, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 61, in page 40, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      1202
      `(1) Where a prospective complainant requests the Commission in writing for advice in relation to prospective proceedings under this Part, the Commission shall give him such advice unless it considers that the request is frivolous.'
      No. 62, in page 40, line 32, leave out 'and'.
      No. 63, in page 40, line 38, at end insert
      `and
      (e) any other form of assistance which the Commission may consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Viggers]

    Clause 51
      PROVISION OF TRAINING
      Amendment made: No. 64, in page 42, leave out lines 9 to 11.—[Mr. Viggers.]
    Clause 52
      MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS ETC. FROM UNDER-REPRESENTED COMMUNITY
      Amendment made: No. 65, in page 42, line 26, leave out '(within the meaning of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989)'.—[Mr. Viggers.]
    Clause 54

      REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 66, in page 42, line 39, after '9(10),' insert `17(5A),'.
      No. 67, in page 42, line 39, leave out 'or 39(3)' and insert '39(3) or 45(1A)'.
      No. 68, in page 42, line 42, leave out from 'regulations' to 'has' in line 43 and insert
      'under section 23(8) or 28 of this Act or order under section 45(1A) of this Act shall be made unless a draft of the regulations or order'.
      No. 69, in page 43, line 2 after 'section' insert '17(5A),'.—[Mr. Viggers.]

    Schedule 2

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 70, in page 45, line 40 at end insert
      'or section 2 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989'.
      No. 71, in page 47, line 47 leave out
      'section 12(2) to (5) and sections' and insert 'sections 12(3),'.
      No. 91, in page 48, line 10, leave out from 'subsection (2)' to 'and' in line 11 and insert
      'for "an order under section" there is substituted "regulations under section 28 or an order under section 26(9) or".'.
      No. 72, in page 48, line 13 at end insert—
      '(za) after the definition of "advertisement" there is inserted—
      "'affirmative action' has the meaning given by section 55 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989;",'.
      No. 92, in page 49, line 7, at end insert—
      '29. In Article 38(2) of that Order for "court" there is substituted "the Fair Employment Tribunal for Northern Ireland".'.—[Mr. Viggers.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Fair employment is a matter of concern to every individual in Northern Ireland, irrespective of religious affiliation or political opinion. It follows that legislation must be fair to all. It must be objective, balanced and capable of impartial application. We believe that our Bill

      1203
      meets these criteria. It maintains the centrality of the merit principle at the point of selection, it ensures the freedom of employers to choose the best man or women for the job, it prohibits reverse discrimination and the operation of quotas in employment.
      At the same time, the reality is that employment opportunities in the Province must be made available more equitably between the two communities. That is fully justifiable. [Interruption.] We need more jobs and the Government are working hard to attract more.
      It is also justifiable on social, economic and political grounds. Denial of equal opportunity in employment deprives individuals not just of one opportunity but of many. Jobs and their remuneration confer status, social mobility and self-esteem. The lack of opportunity to compete for them on an equal basis with others has very damaging repercussions on every individual so deprived. It is personally frustrating, but, worse than that, it wastes talents and abilities that could otherwise be usefully and constructively deployed, not only to the benefit of the individual, but to that of society in general. Therefore, equality in employment opportunity has a strong social justification.
      It can also be justified, and just as powerfully, in economic terms. We have often stressed that the promotion of equality of opportunity should be seen, and is best and most effectively delivered, as an integral part of good personnel practice. Employers want freedom of choice to select the best man or woman for the job. It follows that it is in their interests to ensure the widest possible pool of competing applicants. Sound employment procedures are fully consistent with that basic economic objective. They complement systematic and qualitative selection techniques, while leaving the employer free to exercise choice on the basis of ability, aptitude and potential for the job in question.
      Politically, it is self-evident that a more equitable distribution of economic opportunities between both communities in the Province will contribute to a greater degree of social cohesion and stability. That, in turn, will help to promote higher levels of mutual respect and appreciation between both communities without any compromise of traditional identities. Strategically, the promotion of equality of opportunity is complementary to the range of broader initiatives that the Government are already undertaking in the community relations field.
      These principles are all reflected in the philosophy underlying the Bill. They are, of course, optimistic principles, and we make no apology for that. The Bill offers hope and expectation, but it is also realistic. It recognises that, for that hope and expectation to be fulfilled, both tough legislative provisions and effective implementation are necessary. The Bill is certainly strong. Its compulsory monitoring and review, criminal penalties, and economic sanctions all testify to that.
      Our new legislation must now be effectively implemented. That is the next challenge, and good progress is already being made with the help of employers and trade unions.
      Voluntary monitoring is gathering considerable momentum within Northern Ireland, with more than 420 private sector companies taking advantage of the Government's fair employment support scheme. Given that scheme's importance in the promotion of monitoring
      1204
      practices throughout the private sector and the response of employers to it, I am pleased to inform the House that the Government propose to extend it for a further year.
      In the public sector, voluntary monitoring is now already under way, or being prepared for introduction, across a broad spectrum of undertakings including the Civil Service, the court service, the Housing Executive and health and education boards. I am encouraged by the fact that employers' organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, Engineering Employers Federation and Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and trade unions co-operated with the Government in educational initiatives. The Confederation of British Industry has, in addition, organised seminars for its own members, and the Engineering Employers Federation and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions recently published a joint declaration of protection for the important engineering sector.
      Those are all encouraging and commendable developments. The Government recognise that their continued momentum depends to a considerable extent on the commission and employers working closely and co-operatively together. It also recognises that the commission will wish to operate to the very highest standards of professionalism, impartiality and objectivity; and to do so in a clear and consistent manner. Employers should also feel able to turn to the commission for confidential advice and guidance without the need for formal investigation or scrutiny.
      Accordingly, the Government expect the commission not only to draw up and publish its own rules of procedure but consult employers' organisations and other interested parties in doing so.
      In our White Paper we committed ourselves to progressive evaluation and formal review. I have already said that I will consult at regular six-monthly intervals with the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission and that the formal review will be undertaken by the central community relations unit. In doing so, it will take the broadest possible approach. Clarification was sought on that point in Committee. I am pleased to provide it. I consider it essential that the unit's views should be closely informed by interested parties outside Government and particularly by those bodies who contributed so constructively and influentially to the framing of the legislation. Accordingly, in reviewing this legislation the unit will seek observations from outside bodies such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, employers' organisations, trade unions, the Equal Opportunities Commission and, of course, the Fair Employment Commission.
      As already indicated in Committee, the outcome of the unit's report will be published so that all interested parties are fully informed of the consequential action proposed. That is important, because there is no doubt that in preparing for the new legislation the Government have been greatly assisted by the voluntary initiatives of individual employers, employers' organisations and trade unions. Our thinking has been constructively influenced by the various submissions on fair employment matters received over the last few years not only from such bodies but from the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission, various Churches and other interest groups and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, in its very influential report.
      Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister allow me to intervene?
      Mr. Viggers: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but those matters were debated at length in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to raise further points.
      The Government are grateful for the enterprise and initiative of all concerned, and they look forward to sustained co-operation between such bodies and the Fair Employment Commission in helping to ensure the effective implementation of the legislation.
      The post of chief executive in the commission will shortly be advertised, and in preparation for the transition from agency to commission a group representative of Government and the agency has been set up to make all the necessary plans and arrangements for the transition. Appointments have already been announced of those designated to assume the key roles of chairman of the Fair Employment Commission and of president of the Fair Employment Tribunal. Work is also going forward on the subordinate legislation that will be consequent on the passage of this Bill, and work is also in hand on preparation of the draft code of practice on which there will be subsequent consultation with all interested parties.
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      Mr. Viggers: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) had the opportunity on Report to make a number of contributions, and I am sure that he will have another opportunity to speak during this debate. It will be more approprate to deal with further points at the end of my remarks.
      I assure the House that, having anticipated the passage of this legislation, the Government are gearing themselves to ensure that the measures are in place and fully effective as soon as possible. I pay tribute to my fellow members of the Standing Committee and to our Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). I also express my appreciation for the constructive and positive suggestions made by the official Opposition and by other parties during consideration of the Bill, whether in Committee or on Report. I am sure that the Bill that I now urge the House to approve is sharper and more effective as a result of our deliberations. That is important, given the strong commitment of all parties in the House to the principle of fair employment and its effective implementation in Northern Ireland. I invite the House to approve the Bill.
      8.54 pm
      Mr. McNamara: Northern Ireland occupies an unusual position in the United Kingdom, both in terms of its constitutional status and of its attitude to Northern Ireland business within this House. One of the assumptions that has permeated thinking on Northern Ireland is that the normal cut and thrust between Government and Opposition should not apply, summed up in the term bipartisanship.
      Underlying that assumption is the belief that it is the Opposition's duty loyally and uncritically to support the Government in their Northern Ireland policies. That view confuses two things. No one should neglect to recognise the difficulties and personal sacrifices involved on the part of those right hon. and hon. Members who serve and have served in Northern Ireland. Ministers are entitled to sympathy and understanding on that score. But to proceed
      1206
      from that view to the argument that the best interests of Northern Ireland are served by an uncritical approach on the part of the Opposition is a serious error of logic. Even if the Government and Opposition did not have substantial differences about Northern Ireland's long-term future, an uncritical approach would still be inappropriate.
      Our experience of progress with the Bill confirms my long-held belief that a constructive and critical perspective on the part of the Opposition is the best policy. The Bill was substantially amended in Committee and on Report, and is now a better Bill than it was when first laid before the House at the end of last year. Given today's undertakings, it will be far better still when it returns from another place. I am certain that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland agree that the Bill has benefited from the long, arduous and tortuous discussions in Committee. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was the only person who sat in his place for the whole of the Committee's proceedings. That was a considerable physical feat, apart from the fact that he had to suffer all of us. We commend him for it.
      It is the duty of a responsible Opposition not to keep their views to themselves but to present them as forcefully and as cogently as possible. The improvements made since Second Reading reflect very favourably on the ability of the Secretary of State and the Minister to listen to reason as expressed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I may say en passant that that quality is in short supply among the other members of the Government. However, the Department's sensible attitude shows the importance that we all attach to the role of human rights, particularly in Northern Ireland, and the need to ensure that the Bill is as proper and correct as it can be.
      What is more important about that give and take on both sides is that it helps to demonstrate the validity of reason as a political weapon in the context of Northern Ireland—and that makes a valuable contribution to taking the guns out of Northern Ireland politics. The normal exchange of political ideas is of much greater benefit than an artificial unanimity within the House.
      Let us briefly examine the progress that has been made. The Bill has been amended in several important respects. Goals and timetables have been added and provision has been made to change the definition of "employee" by empowering the Government to lower the 16-hour limit by Order in Council. The unacceptable provisions relating to compensation for individuals deemed to be victims of discrimination have been altered to permit more realistic payments. The arrangements concerning monitoring have been amended to make the process less amenable to sabotage. Amendments have been introduced to permit advertising calculated to encourage applications from members of under-represented groups and to improve the administration of the enforcement mechanisms, and to some extent the conflict between affirmative action and discrimination has been tackled.
      We have also had assurances today that the Government will be taking action to deal with the weaknesses of the definition of indirect discrimination and some of the conflicts between the Bill and sex discrimination and European legislation. I also understand that employers will be permitted to take

      1207
      unemployment into account and that the Government consider exclusive recruitment from the job market to be lawful.
      I also welcome the Government's decision, in correspondence to me, to introduce procedures to ensure that information supplied to the Department from the commission will be governed by strict rules as to the use to which such information is put. We all welcome today's decision to extend the voluntary monitoring system for another year. I should have liked it to be extended indefinitely as it is an important inducement to employers. The Minister's statement today about the role, work and methods of dealing with the central community relations unit is also important. In short, most of the points which the Secretary of State claimed were mischievous on Second Reading have become orthodoxy on Third Reading.
      Until tonight, the matter of affirmative action still had to be satisfactorily resolved. We discussed the issue earlier this evening and there is no point in going into detail now, but the action that the Government intend to take in that regard will remove many of our remaining fears about the effect of the legislation. It is not a question of the Government's integrity or desire; it is a question of the Bill's competence to meet the Government's intentions and desires. The proposals that the Government are thinking of implementing will be extremely important if they are carried through. Therefore, the conflict between clause 51 and the European Community equal treatment directive will also be eliminated.
      However, we still have reservations about the Bill. The issue of clause 42 must be tackled. We have discussed some of its difficulties, but the essential element is the unacceptability of including a provision which violates individuals' rights in an arbitrary way, particularly in legislation which is designed to secure and extend human rights.
      We do not believe that the Government have adopted the correct approach to contract compliance. By making it difficult to exclude from Government contracts employers who practise discrimination the Government are putting out the wrong signal. Although I appreciate what the Minister said earlier, we would not have fashioned the Bill in that way. However, we welcome the points that the Minister has made and we do not doubt the Government's commitment to equal opportunity.
      I regret that the Government have refused to respond to the challenge of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report on fair employment, which called upon the Government to set their own goal and timetable for the elimination of the differential rate of Catholic and Protestant unemployment. I understand the difficulty, but, as we had to point out, and as the Government eventually had to accept, goals and timetables are not in themselves affirmative action but are a way of measuring affirmative action. As the Government are such an important employer, it would have been a fine thing, and let us hope that it happens in areas where the Government have considerable influence.
      That leads me to the question of political will, which is another wider problem. Northern Ireland desperately needs more employment as well as fair employment. To attract inward investment—a subject close to the hearts of the Secretary of State and of the Minister and on which they have worked very hard; we support them in their endeavours—it is necessary to convince North American investors that equality of opportunity is being provided. In
      1208
      some ways we do not like the American concern, although we understand it, but it would be foolish not to realise that it exists. Investors have the right, if not the duty, to ensure that their money is employed only or socially acceptable purposes in a socially acceptable environment. Ethical investment is not a purely American phenomenon, as has been shown by its growth in Britain. It is real and should be encouraged. Therefore, I hope that North American friends of Northern Ireland, when looking at this legislation, will turn their attention to its implementation, to seek and encourage investment in firms in which there is investment possibility and fair employment and that the Government have methods of monitoring it and enforcing it with fair remedies which now appear to have real potential as a result of the Bill.
      To rectify the historical patterns of inequality which have so disfigured the Province, effective equality of opportunity must be provided in Northern Ireland. That is necessary to assist in the process of establishing a genuinely democratic system in Northern Ireland. The Government must realise that the essential passage of the Bill to the statute book is not the end of the matter; it is a means to an important end. If we were to take that misguided attitude, the effort put into the Bill by the Government and the Opposition would be wasted.
      The Government should not leave the matter solely in the hands of the bodies set up by the Bill. They must openly and persistently demonstrate their commitment to equality of opportunity. The Bill now provides a strong, potential legal foundation for an equality of opportunity policy. Much building work remains to be done. We have to monitor the implementation of the policy, for example. The Government must ensure that their own house is in order, given the limited applicability of the Bill to the public sector. They must ensure that their industrial policy, especially with respect to the location of employment, takes on board the concept of equality of opportunity. I hope that the Government are aware of the necessity of following through the legislation if their own noble objectives, which they have laid down for themselves today and in the Bill, are to be achieved.
      This is not the Bill that a Labour Government would have introduced. It is not even the Bill we were considering introducing under Standing Order No. 58, if the Government had not amended the Bill. We would have been prepared to introduce a Bill that would have been based more strongly and more specifically on the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and on the reasonable proposals of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
      As I have said before, we still have reservations. We continue to hope that some of the defects will be rectified, as we have been promised this evening. Nevertheless, we have been given some idea of the way in which the Government intend to proceed. They have given us firm undertakings about what will happen in the other place, and we have made considerable progress since Second Reading. The Bill is now potentially strong and workable, which was not the case in January. In those circumstances, if the Bill is challenged on Third Reading, I will recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they should in confidence go with the Government into the Lobby tonight.
      9.7 pm
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The final words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) have come as no surprise to hon. Members, especially those of us who served in Committee. It comes as no surprise that the Labour party are toeing the Government's line this evening. There were two incidents in Committee that persuaded many of us that the Labour party was simply putting up a front and was not intending seriously to challenge the Government on any of their measures. I can recall that, on the second day in Committee, Labour Members, sticking their chests out, tabled an amendment which would have required the Fair Employment Tribunal to be statutorily fair and impartial, and to deal with its business according to a set time schedule.
      However, the Minister had only to utter the weakest of assurances and the stiff opposition of the Labour party melted away. Labour Members sought to withdraw their amendment, which would have required the tribunal, by law, to act fairly and impartially and which provided that it could be taken to a judicial review if it did not act in that manner. When I refused Labour Members the right to withdraw their amendment, I watched the sorry spectacle of Labour Members voting against their own amendment —so much for the Labour party's opposition in Committee. As we have seen in this stage of the Bill, that party's opposition to the Bill has disappeared entirely.
      The second event that I can recall most closely was when I tabled an amendment in Committee. In passing, I should add that I believe the measure to be so flawed and defective that no amendment would make it a satisfactory piece of legislation. Moreover, having listened to the debates in Committee, I was eventually persuaded to table one amendment which was—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I should be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman would relate his remarks to Third Reading. He is making quite a lot of what took place in Committee, but we are now on Third Reading. I ask him to relate his remarks to the Bill.
      Mr. Robinson: I hear what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and recognise that that is the view by which you should like me to abide.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I am asking the hon. Gentleman to abide by the Standing Orders of the House.
      Mr. Robinson: Of course, but all that I am doing is what others have done before me, which is to paint a backcloth against which we can consider this Third Reading. I am sure that no one would seek to deny me rights that others have enjoyed before me.
      I was concluding my reference to the amendment that sought to establish that the Fair Employment Commission itself, which the legislation establishes, should be bound by law to abide by the very regulations that it would seek to force employers in Northern Ireland to accept. However, in Committee both Government and Opposition Members voted against that proposition. I cannot understand how people who really want to ensure that there is fair employment in Northern Ireland could find it offensive that a body that is to carry through fair employment principles in the Province should not be bound by the same
      1210
      strictures that it would seek to have regulated in Northern Ireland. However, the Government and the weak Labour Opposition did not decide to go down that road.
      Of necessity I must advise the House, lest its view is believed, that much of the argument of the Labour party is that discrimination is essentially against one section of the community. I do not see it that way. Indeed, that is not the history of Northern Ireland. Discrimination that any hon. Member would find offensive occurs in both sections of the community, but happily it does not occur to the degree that a debate such as this might suggest and it is not as rampant and as widespread as this measure might suggest.
      Protestants are discriminated against just as much as Roman Catholics have been discriminated against. It does no good if people pretend that there has not been any discrimination in Northern Ireland. All hon. Members should want to end discrimination in Northern Ireland. Indeed, there is no difference in the House on that.
      During the Bill's passage through Committee and the House a number of reports have been issued that suggested that discrimination is still taking place. I can recall that, much to the embarrassment of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), the council in his area was found to have an imbalance in its work force that favoured the Roman Catholic section of the community and discriminated against the Protestant community. Indeed, Protestants were again discriminated against in Strabane, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and, much to the embarrassment of the Minister and of Mr. Bob Cooper, the Fair Employment Agency itself had to confess that it was discriminating against Protestants—although I am sure that those are not quite the words that it used in its admission.
      Discrimination does take place, and it is not confined to one section of the community. The question therefore is what we do to eliminate or at least to reduce it. The Government had a choice. They could have brought forward a measure with a stick-and-carrot approach, with heavy penalties for those found to have discriminated, and encouragements to employers to ensure that they advertised in such a way as to allow all sections of the community access to interviews for employment, and that they used the recruitment procedures of the various schools in the Province. That is the approach that I would have favoured.
      I said in earlier debates that I would have been happier to see even bigger penalties than the Bill recommends, provided they were to be used against those who discriminated and we did not have what the Government call affirmative action, which is, in effect, reverse discrimination. Earlier, the Minister said that they would prohibit reverse discrimination and the use of quotas. The truth is that the Government have encouraged reverse discrimination. Through goals and timetables, they have set up a system of quotas. I was about to say that it is the thin end of the wedge, but quotas and reverse discrimination are well up the wedge.
      The Government are giving a clear signal to employers in Northern Ireland that, if their books do not balance as to the ratio between Protestants and Roman Catholic employees, they will have to make them balance, whatever has to be sacrificed. If employers have to sacrifice the merit principle, so be it. The clear message from the Government is that employers should have the right balance.

      1211
      The Protestant community feels that the Government do not want the right balance Provincewide but only in certain parts of the Province. The Fair Employment Agency is not as concerned when it finds an imbalance which favours the Roman Catholic section of the community. I and others have gone to the Fair Employment Agency to ask for reports on various employers. If the discrimination is believed to be against Protestants, the same enthusiasm has not been evident in the agency. It was because of the lack of trust, faith and confidence in the Fair Employment Agency that I felt it essential that it should be bound by the same measures as it was seeking to impose upon others in relation to employment practices.
      Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the Fair Employment Agency should have been using the same, consistent, procedures in all its investigations and should not have gone through all sorts of contortions in order to try to prove its point?
      Mr. Robinson: Yes. In many ways the Fair Employment Agency was seen by the Protestant community to be touting for business from one section of the community. It is in the interest of the Government that all sections of the community should have confidence in fair employment procedures in Northern Ireland. They will not get that confidence if they refuse to make the Fair Employment Commission and the tribunal answerable to the same regulations that they are imposing upon employers.
      The other essential point is that the public must have confidence in those who are in control of the Fair Employment Commission. People have no confidence in Bob Cooper, because they know his background. They know that he is a political animal and a political reject; they know where he stood before. They have seen how he acted in his role as chairman of the Fair Employment Agency, and they have no confidence in him because of that. By making that man chairman of the new Fair Employment Commission, the Minister could not get the commission off to a worse start. Whatever pressures were applied to the Minister, he made a bad choice that will damage the working of the legislation.
      The legislation will not be used just by the hon. Member for South Down. I have seen enough over the last few years as an elected representative to know that I will use the legislation on behalf of my constituents, just as the hon. Gentleman will use it on behalf of his.
      Rev. William McCrea: Will my hon. Friend seek an assurance from the Minister that, when matters are referred to the agency, there will be a proper investigation into discrimination against Protestants? Until now, it has been absolutely impossible to do so.
      Mr. Robinson: The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend's plea, and he will have an opportunity to respond to it. If the legislation had required the tribunal to act in a fair, balanced and impartial way, other legal measures would have been available. As the legislation stands, the tribunal can pick and choose and decide for itself. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is shaking his head. We will see what happens.
      Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in Committee, the Minister gave an undertaking, and has
      1212
      since introduced an amendment, to enable any individual to apply to the commission, thereby placing an obligation on the commission to give correct and proper advice to the individual.
      Mr. Robinson: Any individual could go along to the Fair Employment Agency today and get advice. Practice will show whether people get a fair deal from the Fair Employment Commission. As the person who has failed the community is part of the leadership of the Fair Employment Commission, the community and I have little confidence that they will get a fair deal from it.
      In Committee, I started by not believing that the measure could be redeemed. I have seen the proceedings in Committee and the close relationship between the Labour party and the Government in the House this evening. However, there is no doubt that the measure—all hon. Members knew that it could probably have been sent by post—will become law. It will not do the job, if the job is to get fair employment in Northern Ireland. I fancy that the job is something else and that the Government did not do what they knew was right or best in fair employment. The Government did what was demanded of them in the Anglo-Irish Conference by their partners in the Republic of Ireland. Their own documentation shows that this measure was pressed through the intergovernmental conference. It is the product of Dublin rule in Northern Ireland. No wonder it is militating against the Province and the community in Ulster. I hope that people will see it for what it is.
      9.22 pm
      Mr. Ashdown: One of the depressing aspects of dealing with Northern Ireland, either its politics, studying it, living in it or, from time to time, having to do such things as keeping the peace in it, is that, again and again, one is visited by the same old sad, sour predictability that hon. Members have heard in the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Not a word of it would have been of surprise to anybody who has studied or lived in Northern Ireland for the past 20 or 30 years.
      I was brought up in the north of Ireland. I hope that I do not stray from the Bill, but this matter has a bearing on discrimination. I was brought up as the child of a Protestant Northern Irish mother and a Catholic southern Irish father. I was brought up in Comber. I remember, as a boy aged 13 or 14, walking the streets of Belfast and being absolutely certain that, coming at us like a dark spectre, was the evil of upsurge, rebellion and disruption as a result of the discrimination, deprivation and poverty that I saw visited against a section of that society. Again and again, we are now blighted—cursed—in Ireland by a group of people who remember everything dating back to the battle of the Boyne but have learnt absolutely nothing.
      I welcome this legislation. I do not pretend that it will be perfect. It will not be, and there will be imperfections. Hon. Gentlemen who wish it evil from the start will no doubt be able to pick out strange rulings and so on, but the key question is whether the measure will add to the sum of fairness and justice in Northern Ireland.
      Rev. William McCrea: For whom?
      Mr. Ashdown: For the population as a whole. Will it be an instrument to bring peace, reconciliation and some ordinary common form of living our ordinary lives? It will not achieve that by itself, but we must ask whether it will

      1213
      add to the instruments that are available to us to produce that kind of society. Those who have sought to block it all the way down the track are only seeking to plunge back into a system which has blighted a great people and a great Province with a great capacity to contribute.
      I support the Bill. In many ways it lived up in Committee to all the hopes I had of it when I spoke and voted for it on Second Reading. At that time the Labour party decided to vote against it, and while I believe that its judgment was wrong, I wish at this stage to pay tribute to Labour Members. I also pay tribute to the Minister because he and the Government generally have shown great wisdom in the way in which they were prepared to accommodate the two matters that were brought before them. I pay tribute to Labour Members for the work they did in introducing, arguing and getting some amendments accepted. While I am paying tribute, I do as the Minister did and pay tribute to others who have been involved in the framing of the legislation, those outside the House such as SACHR and others who gave advice.
      I strongly dissent from the miserable, blighted and mean words of the hon. Member for Belfast, East about Bob Cooper. I accept that Bob Cooper would not be welcome to everybody. Any person who stands up to the kind of evil and bigotry to be found in Northern Ireland will make some enemies somewhere. One cannot win new liberties and new justice in Northern Ireland in the face of what one experiences in that unhappy Province without making some enemies. But Bob Cooper's contribution, in his previous political life in the Alliance party and through his previous appointment, has been great, including his contribution to the Bill. I greet with great warmth the fact that he has been appointed to be head of the commission.
      I said that in any legislation such as this there would be some imperfections. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). This is not necessarily the legislation that I would have brought forward. But in body and in sum, this is legislation the credit of which is worth more than its debits.
      If I were to pick out two areas of the measure about which I remain unhappy, one would be in respect of legal aid which will not now be available. The FEC will be made into something like a case work organisation, offering advice to those who seek it about whether their proposals are trivial or worth putting forward. Let us imagine that the FEC says to a Protestant or a Catholic, "You have a good case. You should be taking it forward." I dare say that many of the poor in Northern Ireland will say, "But I do not have the financial means to take it forward." That is bound to create bitterness and dissatisfaction. For want of a ha'porth of tar—because it would not cost much—the Government have taken a decision which will, I fear, undermine the effectiveness of the Bill.
      Secondly, the Minister will realise that there is still some confusion over the case of the ecumenical and religious organisations and charitable organisations in respect of the way in which the Bill will apply to them. I understand that legal advice has been taken by organisations that, naturally, would wish to employ people who were religiously sympathetic to the views of the charity or ecumenical organisation. It would be helpful if the Minister would announce that he will be issuing guidelines
      1214
      to clarify their position, for I feel sure that it is not the intention of the Government to include those sort of organisations within the precise legal ambit of the Bill.
      Of course the Bill will not be perfect. No Bill dealing with the difficult matter of intervening, on the one hand, in the free market, and, on the other, in the freedom of the individual will always be able to strike a perfect solution, but that is not the question before us. The question is whether, in sum, the Bill well help to alleviate some of the problems of discrimination that have occurred on both sides. I accept the point of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. Although I believe that, if we were to ask him where the weight of discrimination has lain, if he were to speak to himself honestly, he would know the answer, as I would.
      I believe that in sum the Bill is a decent measure which should be given a fair wind. It has been improved, because of the work done both in and outside of politics in the Committee stage. I am glad and proud that I voted for it on Second Reading, and, with all its imperfections—there are not many but there are some—I shall vote in favour of it for the same reason tonight.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. McGrady: This is a unique occasion for the community of Northern Ireland, because it is the third, and I hope last, requirement of what was the civil rights campaign some 20-odd years ago. The three prongs of that campaign were: one man, one vote; a house on need; and a job on merit. The Bill before us is not the Bill it was when it started out. On Second Reading, I was extremely critical of it, and I laid down the benchmarks by which my party would measure the success or failure of the Government to provide a meaningful piece of legislation whose intent was the eradication of discrimination in Northern Ireland.
      In listening to some hon. Members, I was reminded of an old saying from my part of the country—that one cannot hide behind a bush and shake it at the same time. We have heard hon. Members say that discrimination does not exist, and then the same hon. Members have given examples of where discrimination does exist. I want to put clearly on record—as I did in Committee—that I and my party are completely opposed to discrimination from whatever source and upon whomever it is visited. It is unjust, it is wrong and it cannot be countenanced, no matter where it may originate or who suffers it.
      As a Member new to a Committee considering such a Bill, I found it an eye opener. The Bill was complex and contained many phrases which were emotive and required great interpretation. I must endorse what other hon. Members have said—that the Minister and, presumably, his Department had an open ear to the arguments and debates in Committee. The Minister did not always respond in the way in which one would have wished, but there was a strong indication—we now have the proof—that the Minister often took on board the arguments and the suggestions in Committee. I record my party's appreciation of the Minister's attitude to the Bill.
      One of our great worries at the start was that we would have a repetition of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, which was a pious hope that by persuasion and gentle coaxing the dramatic sectarian affliction of Northern Ireland, in terms of jobs, could be eradicated. I believe that, with the changes in the Bill on

      1215
      affirmative action, goals and timetables, substantial progress has been made to make it an effective weapon against that injustice.
      As the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has shown, the Bill has a certain weakness. The Minister gave me an assurance in Committee that he would table an amendment that would enable individuals to have more meaningful assistance from the Fair Employment Commission. That hope has not been fulfilled, because the individual has only been promised advice.
      I hope that the Fair Employment Commission in the other paragraphs of that section will be liberal in its interpretation, so that the case of an individual may be considered as a "policy matter", or of a "substantive nature", which would enable the commission to take that case—not at the individual's expense—to the tribunal. We are grateful that the Fair Employment Commission will be consulted before the code of practice is published and that the compensatory sums are more substantial than they originally were.
      There are, however, a number of disappointments about the Bill. We have already spoken about section 42 orders and national security, which I believe are causing sectarian injustice in terms of jobs. I shall not pursue that argument, however, because we have already discussed it.
      We fail to convince the Minister that, under clause 27, firms with fewer than 250 employees should be subject to annual monitoring. The economy of Northern Ireland is largely based on the small employer and the vast majority of its work force are employed in places with fewer than 250 employees. Those firms will escape such monitoring.
      I am also disappointed about the 16-hour rule on short-term or casual employment. Because of the numerous economic problems of Northern Ireland, many people take on part-time employment, but they will not be covered by the Bill. Unfortunately, those people are generally the least well-off and the lowest-paid in our society. With the endemic unemployment of Northern Ireland, employment prospects are limited, so such part-time jobs are greatly sought after. I asked the Minister to consider reducing the 16-hour rule to 12 hours if experience proved that the present rule was defective. The Minister either did not hear my question or chose not to respond, but I hope that he will refer to it later on.
      The other grave area of concern relates to contract compliance. I do not mean contract compliance in the sense referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but the withholding of Government grants and aids from firms which are found guilty of operating discriminatory practices. The clause of the Bill relating to this is purely permissive; it says that the Government "may" withhold grants from the offending employer or firm.
      I find it almost inconceivable—I hope that the Minister shares my disbelief—that the Government would pay grants or monetary benefits to firms found guilty of discrimination. Although the Minister rejected my attempt to make the permissiveness mandatory, in the circumstances I hope that public funds will not be used to perpetuate discriminatory employment practices. Allied to the general contract compliance provisions, such funding is a matter of great concern to me.
      The Bill can he applied across the board. Hon. Members representing the Democratic Unionist party have suggested that its application will be one-sided. I cannot see how or why it should be one-sided, because the
      1216
      legislation is obviously available to everyone who wishes to take it up. I certainly support the concept that, whether it be Catholic or Protestant discrimination, it is equally reprehensible and should be equally amenable to the law which we hope will be passed under this Bill. I have never made any secret of that.
      I do not want to pick out examples, but one was thrown at me tonight, which it was alleged embarrassed me in Committee, about the Newry and Mourne district council. To set the record straight, the Fair Employment Agency did not find Newry and Mourne guilty of discrimination. It found that it had not discriminated in appointments but it did say there was an imbalance and that therefore it should be more attentive to promoting an outreach programme which would encourage members of the under-represented community to apply for jobs.
      This is an area that has been called bandit country, and there is a concept abroad that it is dangerous for Protestants to work there. This is nonsense, but it is the concept that is promoted. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a lack of response to advertising.
      We are at a stage now at which the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It is up to the Government, when the Bill goes through—we shall certainly be voting for the Bill in its present form, although we have some reservations about weaknesses in it and some caveats to enter about some of its provisions—to make this legislation meaningful in Northern Ireland. That means that they have to devote appropriate resources, in both finance and manpower, to the Fair Employment Tribunal to enable it to do the work more speedily perhaps than, according to criticism, the Fair Employment Agency has done in the past. It is up to the Government also to give a lead from their own departmental employment resources and show the way forward to proper recruitment, employment and promotional prospects. Great strides have been made, but many areas have yet to be properly looked at and adjusted.
      When the Minister opened the debate, he mentioned a series of bodies, state and semi-state, which are to be engaged in voluntary monitoring. My ear may not have caught it, but it seems to me that one area which he did not mention—and it causes me great concern that it has not been addressed—is the whole area of local government in Northern Ireland, in both its district council and its area board sense. I hope that the Minister will say whether I am wrong about this and did not pick him up correctly or whether, indeed, none of the health area or education area boards or the 26 district councils has yet tried to engage in voluntary monitoring, as have the 400-odd firms in the private sector, which is very welcome.
      I echo the sentiment of other hon. Members that, at the end of the day, the great problem, after solving that of the injustice of discrimination, is to try to provide jobs for everybody in Northern Ireland. I like to think that the Bill will not discourage investment from abroad, but will be an encouragement, showing that there is an earnest endeavour to create a fair and just society in which remedies for injustice can be obtained.
      I do not fear that, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) suggested, this will scare off firms across the Atlantic. My experience, little though it be, is that firms across the Atlantic are used to much more severe penalties for discrimination against ethnic minorities than those contained in the proposed legislation. American firms are well used to the necessity to monitor, and even provide quotas for, ethnic groups, and do not see anything wrong

      1217
      with that, for some peculiar reason. Therefore, there would be no problem with investment from America coming to Northern Ireland. Hopefully, it will be a source of new investment.
      The crux of the matter is to provide jobs for as many people as possible in Northern Ireland. I hope that the legislation, rather than preventing them, will enable firms to come to Northern Ireland confident in the knowledge that the discrimination problem, which is so widely known abroad, has been addressed and is in the process of being eliminated. That will give firms the confidence to come forward to set up their new investment and job creation ventures in Northern Ireland.
      I compliment the Minister once again on having a mind open to argument and persuasion, and for tabling many amendments which will make the Bill much more meaningful than it was on Second Reading.
      9.47 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: It is quite evident that the opinion exists in this House that discrimination is limited to discrimination against Roman Catholics. The leader of the Democrats became heated about the sad, dark wave of hatred that he experienced as a child. If that was so, why is the worst housing in Belfast not in the Falls road, but in Sandy row?
      A leading Member of the House who was appointed to the Northern Ireland Office and who is now chairman of the Labour Party organisation in the House said to me when he came to Northern Ireland, "I have got my eyes open and here in this citadel of Protestantism, Sandy row, you have the worst and most deplorable houses in the whole of Northern Ireland".
      Therefore, it is absolutely wrong to paint a picture showing the Protestants as the ones who have everything and the Roman Catholics who have nothing. I remember being at a press conference in Los Angeles where that view was put to me, and I asked the simple question, "How can you run a successful rents and rates strike if you don't have property?" There was no answer to that.
      There was, has been, and may even continue to be discrimination between both sections of the community. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) finished his speech with the point that across the world it was viewed that there was discrimination, but that at long last it was being put right. Across the world the picture is painted that Protestants discriminate against the Roman Catholics, and that is it.
      It is interesting that during the past few days the United Nations has produced a document saying that there is more discrimination against minorities in the Irish Republic than in any other country that it had studied. We have only to look at the population in the South. There was a time when the Protestants comprised 10 per cent. of the population, but now they form only 3 per cent. We are told that in a few years there will be such a breeding of Roman Catholics that Protestants will be in a minority in the North. I always remind people that Protestants also breed, so that will not happen.
      The legislation going through the House tonight makes an employer not merely an employer but a snooper who looks into the religion, the recreation and the schooling of
      1218
      those whom he employs. The Big Brother approach advocated in the Bill will not be at all healthy; that is what the opposition to the Bill is all about.
      It is regrettable that people with legitimate cases cannot be helped to fight them, although they are entitled to the money that they need to do so. Under the old system, a member of my Church who was discriminated against received the largest settlement that the Fair Employment Agency was able to obtain. And the Government say that Protestants are not discriminated against.
      Mr. Bob Cooper has been praised to the heights for the work he has done. I once obtained a document which showed that a certain contractor was obtaining all the work commissioned by a certain Government Department—and he employed only Roman Catholics. I took the document to the Fair Employment Agency and showed it to Mr. Cooper personally. I said, "Bob, I want that investigated." Then I went home.
      I had hardly crossed the doorstep when the police arrived. They asked me where I had obtained the document. I said, "That is my business. What did Mr. Cooper do?" The police said that he had called them in immediately. He had said, "This document must have been stolen. I want you to go and put pressure on Ian Paisley." I told the House about it at the time.
      I referred the police to Mr. Speaker. I said, "If Mr. Speaker requests me to hand over the document, the police will get it." Needless to say, Mr. Speaker said that what I had received, given my parliamentary standing, I was entitled to use to the best advantage of my constituents; and there it stopped.
      What faith could I have in the head of the Fair Employment Agency, who was brought evidence and immediately referred it to the police? And we are told about fair employment. Mr. Cooper is known throughout Northern Ireland as someone in whom Protestants will not put their trust; nor, indeed, will many Roman Catholics. For some time an organisation opposing him was run by Roman Catholics who had no faith in what he was doing.
      The Bill will take us back to a time when people in Northern Ireland had no faith in the organisations. The Minister has told us that he will ensure that all cases are investigated. Well, we shall see. I trust that, when the public representatives knock at the door of a firm to find the evidence gone and an investigation is requested, a proper investigation will take place with immediate publication of the results.
      Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend not find it strange that when members of investigating bodies are appointed there seems to be a continual leaning towards a particular political party? Is it not odd that the Minister can only find members of the Alliance party to appoint? Is that why the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) seems to have such a tremendous relationship with Mr. Bob Cooper—because he happens to be a member of the Alliance party?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Under the review that we heard so much about today, Dublin will have a say in who will be appointed. Not only that, but the review says that the little power that the local councils have now will have to be clipped as well so the majority section of the community will have very little representation. We will see who is appointed.

      1219
      It is interesting that we have had a lot of talk about the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Why is it that there is no nomination for that commission of an Official Unionist—the majority party in Northern Ireland? Why is that there is no nomination from the Democratic Unionist party? Why is it that there are no members of the Alliance party?
      The Minister has to face up to those issues. Public bodies should cover the spread of the community. Of course there will be various views put by the Unionists on that point, but perhaps that will be helpful.
      I do not agree with all that is said by SACHR, but it says a lot of good things and it does not always side with the Government. Let us have fair appointments. If we do, some confidence can be instilled into the Community. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will take courage from the fact that the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench are saying, "This is for you." The Protestant employees must study it, and use it well and wisely. Perhaps then we will see whether there is fairness from the Government and those who have said that they want fairness for both communities.
      9.57 pm
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) picked up some remarks made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and accused him of being willing to pick out cases to illustrate his point; he described them as trying to caricature the real position. I had always thought that one of the outstanding characteristics of a caricature was that one recognised the individual portrayed. Had the hon. Gentleman thought of that point, he would not have been so anxious to use that analogy, because the caricature that is created in the minds of people about cases that are picked out reveals the reality of the situation.
      When I first came to this House, a very old long-standing Member said, "Whenever the two Front Benches are in agreement"—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has made it perfectly plain that there is an enormous amount of bipartisanship between the two Front Benches—"watch out; it is bound to be wrong." It was true then, and it is true today, and it was never more true than it is over this Bill.
      The Government do not like to hear this. One of the things that has made me particularly sad today is the fact that the Minister thinks he has done a good job. God help him, and God help Ulster, which has to put up with the consequences of the legislation which the House will undoubtedly pass into effect this evening.
      Moving the Third Reading, the Minister described the Bill as fair, objective and balanced. It was so balanced that, from the moment the Bill appeared, there has been no concession whatsoever to the Unionist point of view. It has been ignored. In fact, I was interested in the treatment given to the questions that have been put time after time today. We saw a galactic black hole in operation on the Government Front Bench. Things went into it, but nothing came out, or at least nothing that was of any use in explaining the effects of the Bill.
      It has been an interesting but sad day. If the Minister stays in the Northern Ireland Office, he will live to regret the day that he, with the help of the Opposition, piloted this legislation through the House. It has come to the
      1220
      House for its final stages just before we rise for a recess and, unfortunately, few hon. Members have taken an interest. I wish more had done so. If they had, perhaps some—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
      The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 20.

      Division No. 219]

      [10.00 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Howells, Geraint

      Amos, Alan

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Irvine, Michael

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Jack, Michael

      Ashby, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Atkinson, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Beith, A. J.

      Lightbown, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Bright, Graham

      Lord, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

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

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Burns, Simon

      Maclean, David

      Butterfill, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Carrington, Matthew

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Stern, Michael

      Cran, James

      Stevens, Lewis

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Devlin, Tim

      Summerson, Hugo

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Dover, Den

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Durant, Tony

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Favell, Tony

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Forman, Nigel

      Viggers, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Freeman, Roger

      Walden, George

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Waller, Gary

      Gow, Ian

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Wells, Bowen

      Gregory, Conal

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hague, William

      Wood, Timothy

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Harris, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hayward, Robert

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

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

      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Beggs, Roy

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Pike, Peter L.

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Dixon, Don

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Haynes, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ingram, Adam

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Janner, Greville

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McNamara, Kevin

      Rev. Ian Paisley and

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Rev. William McCrea.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Mr. Ross: When I was interrupted, I did not imagine that I would have such a long rest to think more carefully about my remarks. I was pointing out that, during the Bill's passage, no concession whatsoever was made to the Unionist point of view. During one period—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members must either enter the Chamber or leave quietly.
      Mr. Ross: Sadly, some right hon. and hon. Members have voted on a subject about which they know little, and they show even less desire to learn because they are never present in the Chamber to listen. If they were, they might know more about the issues on which they vote. However, that would lead them to oppose the Government, which would not be liked very much either. It is in the interests of the Government Whips, as well as my own, that they leave the Chamber as soon as possible.
      In Committee, the question was raised of persons employed by charitable bodies and by churches. It was pointed out that they should fall outside the terms of the Bill because such posts require a certain commitment from the people who fill them. The example given concerned a religious commitment. The Minister's reply on that occasion showed that he did not have a clue as to what is meant by a religious commitment in Northern Ireland terms, thus confirming—as he has done time and again during the passage of the Bill—that he did not have a clue about the situation in Northern Ireland and that it is beyond his comprehension.
      I find the Bill offensive. I remarked earlier that it is offensive to work people, who dislike being asked about their religious affiliations. It is insulting also to the ability, integrity and intelligence of employers, because it implies that they recruit people on the basis of the religion to which they belong. It may be that an employer can draw many high-quality workers for a large establishment from one religious community. The probability is that he could not do that, and therefore the legislation is accusing employers of employing people of lesser competence. If that is the case, they will not be in business for very long. Every business man and every employer is looking for the best quality employees that he can find, but he will not be allowed to do that under the Bill.
      The Bill will turn employers into pernicious snooping policemen. It will find out whether an employer believes that he is providing equal employment, and it will then demand that he takes affirmative action, which is reverse discrimination. An employer will even be asked to anticipate the possibility that one section of the community might be under-represented and take action before that occurs. If an employer is found guilty of having an imbalanced work force, he will be given six months to correct that imbalance.
      Jobs are scarce in Northern Ireland; if someone has a nice, safe, secure job, he will not leave in six months. Therefore, the possibility of a company having a meaningful turnover in six months is nonsense.
      I turn to the question of merit which was so clearly enunciated at the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister; she said that people should be employed on merit alone. I found it interesting that, when the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke about merit, he qualified it. He said that people should be employed on merit and according to need, and that people should be employed
      1222
      because they needed a job. In my experience, anyone who does not have a job is looking for one, so by implication they need a job. If anyone can suggest a cohesive and sensible way of combining merit, the need for a job and a fair spread of religious denomination within the catchment area—whatever that may be—I will be pleased to listen, but I have not heard it yet and I do not expect to hear it from the Minister this evening.
      How should one determine discrimination or imbalance in a work force? We have never been told the criteria. No effort has been made to tell us what should be taken into account. The basic problem is that one has to determine a geographical area around a factory. I have read many reports of investigations carried out by the Fair Employment Agency. I found shifting sands of criteria. One has only to read the reports of Londonderry to see the verbal contortions used by Mr. Cooper, who has featured so prominently in this Third Reading debate, and other writers of those reports to avoid the truth. I believe that Protestants suffer fairly grievously from discrimination in many firms in that area and no efforts have been made to expose those firms to anything like the extent that efforts were made when firms that are owned and run by Unionists are under investigation.
      We shall also find that the Government will try to avoid giving the advice that I asked to be given to incoming employers so that they can be made aware of the dangers they will face if they transgress criteria that have not yet been explained to any hon. Member or anybody in Northern Ireland. Those criteria will not be explained clearly and factually to any incoming investor or employer. We have not been told what the time scale will be for the reports that have to be prepared on individual firms or all the firms, or on the cases that may be brought to the attention of the investigating body in Northern Ireland.
      I could go on, but we have wasted the time of the House in useless argument and in useless proposals—useless not because they lack merit, but because the Government are determined not to listen to anything that Unionist Members say to them about Northern Ireland. If one looks at Northern Ireland today, after 10 years of this Government and nearly 20 years after the House assumed responsibility for the governance of that Province, one can only conclude that those who have been running Ulster have made a mighty poor job of it in those 20 years.
      One of the reasons for that poor job—indeed, the principal reason for the present unhappy condition of the Province which I have the honour to represent—is the fact that we who represent the majority community and who won another election only last week, thereby showing the support we enjoy in the community, have had our voice and our advice ignored not only by this Government, but by successive Governments. While that continues and while this Government listen to, accept and implement the advice given by enemies of the Union, the condition of Ulster will not improve. Those who sit on the Government Front Bench and those who sit in No. 10 Downing street bear the ultimate responsibility for the condition of the Province and for the murders, deaths and violence there. They alone are the people who will answer one day at the bar of history. I am a professing Christian and a committed Christian, which the Minister does not understand. I believe that one day they will all answer before the throne of the returning judge on judgment day.
      10.22 pm
      Mr. Harry Barnes: You are no doubt, sceptical of such statements, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to be brief. I welcome the improvements and strengthening in the Bill and the suggestions that there will be further improvements of it in another place. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) earlier criticised Labour Members for adopting a different position on Third Reading from the position they adopted on Second Reading. He might reflect on the fact that it is because we adopted a different position on Second Reading that it was possible, in a desire to obtain a more bilateral response, to achieve an improved Bill.
      The argument of the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that Protestants are discriminated against in many areas in Northern Ireland is correct. I made that point myself when we were discussing the White Paper that led to the Bill. It seems to be an argument for saying that this Bill is the type of legislation that is required. It can be of benefit to the Protestant population as well as to the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentlemen should have applied their minds in Committee to the way in which the Bill will operate so that they could strengthen its provisions to protect the interests of the Protestant community in the areas they represent.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I have reservations about the Bill. It would work at its best if it was working in a fair weather economic situation in Northern Ireland, where there were plenty of jobs already. If we were talking about youngsters coming on to the job market and about who would get the chance of what job, or if we were talking about people changing jobs or promotion or about people moving, it would be much easier to operate such provisions. Even in the current circumstances, if we had a vastly improving economic system, with new jobs emerging all over the place, such legislation could operate to balance out discrimination and to introduce a fairer work mix in Northern Ireland. However, there is economic conflict in Northern Ireland and it must be added to the terrorist conflict and the sectarian politics of the Province and it cannot help. Conflicts between capital and labour, and capital and capital in search of markets, cannot assist in circumstances of high employment.
      The fact that some hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have spoken in favour of an enterprise culture seems to run up against the type of provisions in the Bill and the other economic and social circumstances that should be seen as the context of such legislation. The privatisations of Harland and Wolff, of Short Brothers and of the electricity industry and the destabilisation of the health and social services are vast problems that affect the legislation working as fully as it should.
      Northern Ireland is in great need of an extension of democratic provisions, of devolved power and of a Bill of Rights to protect everyone in the different minority positions in the different sections of the Province. If we were to have a Full Employment Bill and a Democracy Bill for Northern Ireland, we might have all the different elements that would enable us to begin to work together to improve the position. We now have one part, or at least a nudge towards one part, of those three elements and
      1224
      perhaps it will be of some assistance; but a Full Employment Bill and a Democracy Bill would be of far more importance.
      10.26 pm
      Mr. Viggers: With the leave of the House, I shall seek to respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate.
      The House is nearing the end of a long road on this fair employment legislation. It started when my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), then the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, ascertained in July 1985 that the 1976 legislation had not been as successful as was hoped in rectifying the imbalance in employment in Northern Ireland. In September 1986 we published a consultative document which was followed by the guide to effective practice, then the White Paper, then the Bill. There has been wide consultation and I know from my discussions with individuals that we have the good will of many employers in Northern Ireland and of employer and, I trust, employee representatives as well.
      For the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to say that the Bill is a product of Dublin rule in Northern Ireland is ludicrous and does not square with the facts. Yes, I have been to Dublin and have discussed the legislation with those in Dublin, but we have had many other discussions as well—
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Why?
      Mr. Viggers: It has been helpful to have those contributions and saying that the Bill is the product of Dublin rule does not square with the facts.
      I welcome much more the contribution, in so far as he made this point, of the hon. Member for Antrim. North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who said that the legislation exists and urged people to use it. I echo that. The legislation is there to be used and I urge all people to use it. Indeed, I urge the hon. Gentleman and others to promote participation in this legislation, in industrial matters and in matters relating to Government generally.
      I assure the House that the legislation is even-handed, but we must face the fact that, despite the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, male Catholics are still two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. That is unacceptable and to that extent there is an imbalance, which we are seeking to rectify. The legislation is even-handed.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Get them jobs.
      Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman says, "Get them jobs", but that is exactly what we are seeking to do, and with a level of success. I say with great pride that since I have held my current post unemployment in Northern Ireland has fallen from 134,988 to 107,625. I know those figures well and am proud of them. We are working hard to improve employment, and I urge all hon. Members to do all they can to improve the position.
      The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred to the 16-hour limit for part-time employees and asked for an assurance that if it appeared that the limit was causing injustice we would rectify that quickly. If an employee works for less than 16 hours per week he will not be covered by the Bill. In Committee I gave an assurance that we would take powers to vary the 16-hour limit, so I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

      1225
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about participation by public bodies and local authorities in the monitoring procedures. Progress is being made in encouraging monitoring and setting up procedures. We hope that more work will take place on that when the legislation becomes law.
      The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked specifically about Church bodies and their concern that they might be debarred from selecting people who shared the faith which they seek to promote. I made a long speech on the subject in Committee. We have included an exemption from the anti-discrimination provisions for those jobs whose "essential nature"—those being the
      important words—requires them to be done by persons holding or not holding a particular religious belief. The test is deliberately tightly drawn because we are anxious that there should be no wider loophole for exemption. We think that the provision is fair. It is parallel with the provision in the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.
      The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) alleged that the legislation will not be fair in that it breaches the merit principle and will mean that the best man or woman will not be appointed to the job. I assure him that our guiding principle in the legislation is that the best man or woman should be appointed.
      The right hon. Member for Yeovil made a moving speech based on his personal experience of growing up in Northern Ireland. He said that from his experience and knowledge the legislation was right. He said that he supported it on Second Reading and that he would support the Third Reading. The right hon. Gentleman approached the legislation from his personal experience of Northern Ireland.
      I approach the whole subject from a different viewpoint—that of one who is reluctant to add any new burden to industry and who believes that the principles on which the Conservative Government have been operating are right and that we should be slow to impose any extra burden on industry. I recognise that the legislation will impose extra burdens, although I believe them to be light. I believe that they will be acceptable to good employers. All we are asking them to do is to engage in good personnel practice.
      Approaching the legislation from a different viewpoint from that of the right hon. Gentleman, I am convinced that it is appropriate and right in the context of Northern Ireland. On that basis I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 4.

      Division No. 220]

      [10.33 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Ashby, David

      Amos, Alan

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Arbuthnot, James

      Atkinson, David

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      1226

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Ingram, Adam

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Irvine, Michael

      Beith, A. J.

      Jack, Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Knapman, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lightbown, David

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

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Burns, Simon

      Lord, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Carrington, Matthew

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Chapman, Sydney

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Cran, James

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Devlin, Tim

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Dixon, Don

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Dover, Den

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Durant, Tony

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fallon, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Stevens, Lewis

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Forman, Nigel

      Summerson, Hugo

      Forth, Eric

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Freeman, Roger

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Gow, Ian

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Viggers, Peter

      Gregory, Conal

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Walden, George

      Hague, William

      Waller, Gary

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Harris, David

      Wells, Bowen

      Haynes, Frank

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Hayward, Robert

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Wood, Timothy

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

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howells, Geraint

      Mr. David Maclean and

      Hume, John

      Mr. John M. Taylor.

      NOES

      McCrea, Rev William

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Mr. Roy Beggs and

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Mr. Peter Robinson.

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

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  MAGISTRATES' COURTS
  That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  Question agreed to.

National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
10.43 pm
Mr. Adam Ingram: I wish to make it clear at the outset that this Adjournment debate is decidedly not the best way to discuss the issue of the future of the national engineering laboratory, which is in my constituency and which is recognised throughout the world as a major national asset to this country.
I am grateful for the time that I have been allocated, but the issue should have been handled in an entirely different way, with the Minister coming to the House to explain his original decision. It was absolutely outrageous that the decision to privatise the laboratory was announced by way of a written answer to a question planted by the Minister with the aid of a compliant Tory Back-Bench Member who probably knew neither where the NEL was situated nor anything about the work done there. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is not present in the Chamber to participate in or even to hear the debate.
The Department of Trade and Industry did not even pay me the courtesy of formally notifying me that the decision was to be announced or that it would result in the loss of nearly 200 jobs—a third of the work force. The way in which it was done exhibits a nervousness on the part of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the responsible Minister. It was a clear attempt to avoid accountability on the issue.
The lack of real interest in the work and worth of the laboratory is shown by the fact that the Secretary of State has visited the site only once, and that was a year ago, six weeks before he announced his initial abortive bid to off load the laboratory to the private sector. His visit lasted less than one hour. The Minister's own indifference to the work done at the laboratory is shown by the fact that he has likewise visited the laboratory only once, and that was after last week's announcement. It is almost as if his decision to visit was an afterthought and a trouble to him.
In a letter the day after the announcement, the Minister told me:
"I have arranged to visit the National Engineering Laboratory … as I felt it was important to give everyone there the opportunity to hear the Government's view and for me to hear their reactions to our announcement."
The truth is that the Minister spoke to no more than a handful of senior civil servants at the laboratory and, like the Secretary of State, he stayed for less than an hour. So much for his express wish to give everyone the opportunity to hear the Government's view and, I would have thought more importantly, for him to hear the reactions of the work force to the announcement. He gave me that assurance in his letter, but he did not stand by it.
Those actions showed sheer, utter contempt for the work force, many of whom have worked there for 10, 20 or 30 years, and who have given so much to make the NEL a world leader in its field of engineering and industrial research.
The Prime Minister is rightly described as an ambulance chaser for the way in which she exploits for publicity purposes every disaster in this country. The work force at the NEL has a not dissimilar view of the Secretary
1228
of State and the Under-Secretary of State at the DTI. The NEL staff view them as being the undertakers. I noted that even the Secretary of State for Scotland issued a statement welcoming the decision to privatise the laboratory. As if he really cared about the matter! He has not even visited the laboratory since taking office. The work force at the NEL is expecting him, however, to turn up at the burial.
It is important to put the announcement to privatise NEL in its recent historical context. In February last year the permanent secretary at the DTI notified the trade unions that all four of the industrial research establishments were to be reviewed and that the report was to be completed within a month. The review of the NEL by the DTI's central policy unit appeared to comprise a half-a-day visit by two people.
Last May the Secretary of State dropped in by helicopter. He stayed for just under an hour and told the press that he had been impressed by what he saw. Later in the month, he announced that he intended to privatise the laboratory and that the other three industrial establishments were to be given agency status. Only the NEL was targeted for privatisation.
In August, after much encouragement had been given to the private sector to take over NEL, the foreign-owned YARD company was given the green light to investigate the laboratory and to submit a bid. In October, despite promises of massive state aid, YARD pulled out of the bid.
Undaunted, the Secretary of State pushed ahead with a dogmatic determination to privatise the establishment. He appointed the firm of Touche Ross—at a cost calculated to be in excess of £100,000—to carry out an evaluation of the laboratory and to report to him in April of this year.
The year since the first announcement last May has been a period of great uncertainty at the NEL. More than 40 key members of staff have left, 10 of them among the best and the brightest of the scientists employed at the establishment. The blight that has been placed on the NEL, first as a result of the original announcement and now as a result of the decision to push ahead with the privatisation, is suicidal. It is and will prove to be highly damaging to the morale of the work force at the N EL and to work which is done there at the forefront of industrial research and development. It is and will continue to prove damaging to the needs of many hundreds of small companies in Scotland and in Britain which rely upon the laboratory's services. Because of those factors, the Government's announcement has been almost universally condemned in Scotland.
I am sure that the Minister would agree that the key to the success of his decision would be the co-operation of the staff and, in particular, the scientific personnel who determine the quality of the research work undertaken at NEL. That support, however, is not forthcoming.
I want the Minister to respond tonight to the decision taken yesterday at a mass meeting of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants at the laboratory. A resolution passed at that meeting decided:
"That the IPCS should resist strongly any attempt to legislate for the compulsory transfer of staff from NEL to the proposed NTC"—
the national technology centre—
"and that IPCS should alert and ally support from other Civil Service unions to resist the legislation."
In the timetable given for the implementation of the decision no reference is made to the required legislation

1229
relating to it. Can the Minister say when the necessary legislation to effect the decision will be introduced and what form it will take?
At the IPCS meeting another resolution was passed that stated:
"The management have acted deviously in initiating immediate staff selection for the NTC without consultation with the staff side after giving the impression at a previous meeting that a timetable of October 1989 and a plan for redundancy in 1990 would be adhered to. The joint NEL unions should seek the immediate postponement of this selection procedure until full consultations have taken place."
I urge the Minister to respond positively to that request and to postpone the compulsory transfer of staff until those full discussions and consultations have taken place with the staff unions.
Another key to the success of the proposed NTC is the attitude of those customers who currently use NEL facilities and who would be expected to continue to be the customer base for the new organisation. Touche Ross, in its discussions with the laboratory's current customers, found that considerable resistance was shown to the idea of ownership by an industrial organisation. That is, of course, likely to be the eventual outcome of privatisation.
The Touche report stated:
"Much of the work currently carried out is dependent in whole or part on the Laboratory being seen to be independent. A number of potential buyers might also be seen as competitors to other potential customers. There is a view in some quarters that it would be inappropriate for National Standards to be in the hands of a commercial organisation that might be interested in acquiring knowledge of any equipment being calibrated against primary standards."
Therefore, although the consultants appointed by the DTI expressed industry's objections to privatisation, the Government have ignored that view and advice and pressed on regardless.
The report prepared by Touche Ross also stated:
"We would agree with the view of the NEL management that a DTI Laboratory with, say, £9 million of DTI underpinning funding and the ability to trade and compete freely would be preferable to the private sector laboratory from the point of view of its management and staff. However, nothing we have been told by DTI staff leads us to feel that there is any significant chance of such funding or freedoms being made available. We have therefore not made detailed financial projections for such an option."
Therefore, industry that uses the NEL is against its privatisation, but the independent analysis by Touche Ross on the need for a properly funded establishment, unfettered by commercial considerations, has been ignored by the Government. It is little wonder that it is considered that the decision on the NEL has been rigged to satisfy the Secretary of State's obsession with privatisation. There certainly is no evidence to show what has been decided will improve the range and quality of the scientific research carried out by the establishment.
The NEL has served this country well for more than 41 years of its existence because the staff employed there have been able to undertake when necessary innovative and thorough research work, driven by the desire to know rather than by the profit motive.
Under the disciplines of the "near market" philosophy favoured by the Government, that expertise and innovative pride could well be lost to the country.
Over recent years the laboratory has provided a vital back-up research facility for many small businesses within the industrial sector. Many of those businesses simply
1230
could not afford to pay the commercial rates for the work done. It is likely that that essential support given to the small business sector will cease, again to the detriment of the industrial economy within this country.
The decision to restructure and privatise NEL does not have the support of public opinion in Scotland. I need only quote from Scottish newspapers at the time of the initial announcement. The Scotsman said:
"In this instance, the dogma of privatisation has taken priority over everything else."
The Glasgow Herald said:
"We have learned better than to expect the Government to pay much attention to Scottish sentiment in such matters."
The Evening Times said:
"Events prove he"—
that is, the Secretary of State—
"lied to the people of Scotland and the 650 NEL staff."
Public opinion within Scotland is not convinced that the announcement is any different from that original announcement.
The decision to restructure and privatise NEL does not have the support of industry and it most decidedly does not have the support of the people who work at NEL, 200 of whom will lose their jobs, while those who remain will lose pension rights and conditions of service.
In the run-up to 1992 the Government should be trying to invest in industrial research, not divesting itself of a key asset critical to industry's future. I ask the Government to think again about the proposals and to give serious consideration to retaining NEL within the public sector and providing it with sufficient funding and freedom of action to allow it to serve the industrial and engineering research needs of British industry.
I am most grateful for the support tonight of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who I understand wishes to make a few comments on this issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman has the consent of both the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and the Minister.
10.57 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: I rise on behalf of the Opposition, perhaps a bit unusually, but this is a key issue both for our strategy towards the engineering industry and fox Scotland in particular, to give our full support to the case which my hon. Friend has put. This is a quite extraordinary example of damage to, and ignorance of, the dynamics of the engineering industry. The idea that the engineering industry could take over a major research facility, entirely changing the research strategy of a major part of its activities in a short time, and come up with an efficient solution is quite absurd, and so it has proved very quickly.
We ask simply that the damage should be minimised by affording the maximum transitional period, realistic funding and a clear mission for what is still a major national resource which has a great part to play in the future.
10.58 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I start by congratulating the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. The House will recognise the very understandable concern that

1231
he has expressed so eloquently on behalf of his constituents and others at the very major changes which are in the process of happening to the national engineering laboratory.
I acknowledge the sense of the comments made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) as well.
I do not hesitate in acknowledging the great uncertainty that has obtained for quite a long time among the staff of this most important resource. That is something that is always to be regretted because uncertainty tends to breed unhappiness and difficulty.
I accept some of the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman has made about the method and timing of the announcements made recently. I state here and now that at the very least they could have been more felicitously organised. I offer the hon. Gentleman an apology for that, which was due to the speed at which the announcement had to be made. In retrospect, we could have announced it in a different and better fashion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my apology for that.
Before I give a more extensive background to the Government's position, I shall seek to answer directly two of the important questions posed by the hon. Gentleman. First, it is, at the very least, unlikely that any legislation would receive Royal Assent before this time in 1990 at the earliest. I would not be giving away too many secrets if I said that it was unlikely to meet even that time scale.
As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the time scale for the necessary retructuring and investment in the site given in the Touche Ross report spans a period of many years. We have made no secret of the fact that it is unlikely that the process described in the Touche Ross report, which we have substantially underwritten and agreed to, can take place in less than a period of some years. Therefore, we are not talking about something which is to be done hastily. It will, of necessity, take some time.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have been told that assurances have already been given to the staff on the site at East Kilbride that there will certainly be no redundancies during this calendar year. They have been told that there will be no staff reductions before consultations with them have taken place in accordance with the procedures agreed with the trade unions involved. We do not intend to take any peremptory or hasty actions. I expect that the fullest possible consultations on the agreed and understood basis will be undertaken in order that any adjustments may be made in the proper way.
Mr. Ingram: I accept those assurances, but will the Minister say whether there are likely to be redundancies, and if there are, how are they to be effected?
Mr. Forth: We have made it clear throughout that we hope that any changes in staffing levels will be made, as far as is humanly possible, through either early retirement or voluntary redundancies. That would be our hope and aim. At this stage it is too early to judge whether further redundancies will have to be made.
When I made my brief—and I acknowledge that it was brief—visit to the site last week, the limited number of people with whom I was able to speak gave a mixed response to the announcement which had only recently been made. In some laboratory departments, and among some of the management, there is a degree of enthusiasm for what has been suggested.
1232
It is too early fully to judge the likely impact. Until further information is available, further consultations have taken place and the way in which the suggested changes will affect the staffing levels is known, I remain optimistic. I hope that the impact will be more easily managed and will involve the minimum unhappiness—I hope that there will be no unhappiness—among those involved. However, that remains to be seen, and I hope that everyone will enter into consultations in as positive a spirit as possible, even though they will appreciate the background which the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
We must acknowledge that the laboratory, whoever owns it, is, and will remain, a major national resource. It has facilities which are unique in this country and, in some respects, in the world, for large-scale mechanical testing of structures and components, earthquake simulation and, as I saw, the world's most comprehensive facilities for measuring the flows and pressures of oil, air and water, and mixtures of them.
The reason why our objective is the privatisation of the laboratory has been made clear. However, I shall put it on record again because it has been challenged again in the debate.
Mr. Ingram: The Minister has said that the laboratory would remain a national resource. Will he give an assurance that it will remain a British-owned national resource?
Mr. Forth: In all honesty, I feel that it is too early to embark on such assurances, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman well understands—although I think I know why he has asked his question. The process is at an extremely early stage. Touche Ross has made some comprehensive and, in some ways, exciting proposals, which we have largely accepted. Until we know much more clearly where further investment in the site will go and what emphasis it will be given, and what the science park section will mean, I do not think that it would be sensible for me to give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. I am sure that this is not the last time that we shall hear his point; he has got it on the record and we shall take it into consideration.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the other place on 7 June 1988 that the review of the Department's research establishments had shown that
"Roughly three-quarters of the work at NEL currently falls into the category of industrially relevant R and D. The principal beneficiary is industry, not Government, and strong signals from industry are needed in guiding the development and direction of the work. This 'market pull' is more easily provided and understood when the R and D is carried out in an organisation whose progress depends directly on its success in providing services to industry."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 1988; Vol. 497, c. 1398.]
That remains the fundamental justification for our policy. The announcement made last week about the more detailed means of carrying it into effect—involving restructuring, a more commercial approach and, indeed, further investment—is now clearer to all concerned with the publication of the various forms of the Touche Ross report. My right hon. and noble Friend has made it clear that the considerable skills that will remain at the laboratory are best provided in a framework that gives opportunities for commercial drive and commercial expansion where possible. That, we believe, will best he achieved through the routes announced in the last week.

1233
The laboratory must be developed so that its work is increasingly orientated towards meeting its market demands. Its skills and facilities are second to none, and we want to give them the opportunity of succeeding in the market place. I emphasise, however, that the Government are, and will remain, an important customer, on the basis that the laboratory will pay for the work that the NEL can do to support necessary Government objectives—for example, underpinning statutory, regulatory and policy work.
I would be very sorry if the House failed to see last week's announcement of our aim to establish a national technology centre as a very positive factor in the future of the laboratory and of the site as a whole, thus benefiting East Kilbride, Scotland and the national economy. The announcement was made after the most careful study of all the options, and careful consideration of the strengths and, indeed, weaknesses of the arrangements at the laboratory. We are not rushing into hasty decisions.
The original announcement was made some time ago. It has been refined and developed; it has been looked at by Touche Ross experts who made comprehensive proposals based on the facts and figures. I do not believe that there is any reason for pessimism or doubt about the future, provided that all concerned view positively the proposals made by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Government and through the Touche Ross reports.
Mr. Ingram: Does the Minister accept the uncertainty identified by Touche Ross? There is a possibility that, if the NTC is transferred to the private sector, the competiting private companies and industries will not view it as an independent consultancy giving free advice—that it will be run for profit and not for the quality of the research that it funded.
Mr. Forth: Again, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I am sure that that will not happen. I believe that we can develop an approach that will combine the fact of private ownership, in whatever form it may emerge—it is too early to form a complete judgment about that—with retaining the status and reputation of the facility as a respository of national standards. I see no contradiction in that sense and I believe that the two can be managed together. That will be one of our principal objectives. We will have that in mind as we develop the policies in detail. We shall also provide funds for the restructuring and refurbishment of buildings and facilities as appropriate. Although the plans are at an early stage they are being developed rapidly. The Touche Ross report said that refurbishment totalling £3 million over three years would be required. We shall be ready to provide the necessary funds to help management to achieve the required improvements. In addition, the site will be developed as an attractive location for incoming industry. The restructuring programme will be directed towards matching the work of the laboratory with real customer requirements, whether the customers are in the private sector or the Government. I believe that the laboratory has a lot to offer.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride rightly emphasised the likely reduction in employment. It should be noted that an alternative approach consistent with Government
1234
policy on the research establishment might have been to reduce the size of the laboratory to that needed to meet the work necessary to meet the Government's needs and to keep that reduced size laboratory within the Civil Service. However, as was revealed by the Touche Ross report, doing that would have involved reducing staff numbers to 226 as opposed to the present proposal which involves keeping some 400 jobs. The Government have therefore opted for an approach which will seek to maximise the opportunities for the laboratory, the site and the staff. I have already said that reductions in staff will not be carried out hastily. The intention is that they will largely take the form of transfers within Department of Trade and Industry transfers to other Government Departments and retirements, including some early retirements. Furthermore, some staff may set up small companies operating within the science and technology park. This part of the restructuring exercise will take place during 1990. As I have said, at the same time work on developing the site as a science and technology park and in preparing staff to meet market challenges will proceed as quickly as possible if, as we hope, the park is a success there should in due course be more jobs on site than there are at present. I am sure that that will be an increasing possibility as we develop our plans.
As regards staff who will not be working in the national technology centre, my Departments will do everything possible to assist and advise them in dealing with the changes in their careers and circumstance. The legal position is that the transfer of civil servants to the new company—the National Technology Centre Ltd—would be covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. They provide that transferred staff would enjoy terms and conditions having the same effect as those which staff currently enjoy, apart from occupational pension schemes. Any legislation in connection with the transfer could facilitate the transfer, including making provision to enable responsibility for redundancy compensation to be taken over by the new company.
We expect to find ways for NEL staff to be able to share in the financial rewards which will arise if the restructuring leads to successful privatisation.
In the short time available, I have tried to answer as many of the hon. Gentleman's questions as possible. I hope that I have gone some way to reassuring him and, through him, all those involved at NEL, that, in spite of the considerable changes that the Government are seeking to bring about on the site, we and the management of NEL are approaching this in the most positive light. Within the framework of the policy—which we are not prepared to change—we believe that there are considerable grounds for optimism, provided that everybody on the site will come together with the Department and management who are keen and enthusiastic, to take the opportunities of the investment available to seek to make the future of the site the best possible. I am confident that that can be the case and I hope that that message can go from the House to everyone involved on the site in the hope that, in spite of the changes involved, something real and positive will come out of this for the future of NEL and the national technology centre.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Education
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the provision of special education in Cheshire.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has seen the petition which my hon. Friend submitted to him earlier this month concerning special education provision in Cheshire and in particular the LEA's arrangements for individual tuition.

  The Department is currently making inquiries of the Cheshire LEA and I shall send a full reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Teachers
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of mathematics and science teachers in(a) Surrey and (b) England are not trained in the subjects they teach.

  Mr. Butcher
  Estimates of the numbers of teachers of mathematics and science without a qualification in these subjects, and of the amount of tuition they provide, can be derived from the 1988 secondary school staffing survey of maintained schools in England. The figures are as follows:

  Percentage of teachers teaching the subject who do not have a post A-level qualification in it

  Percentage of all tuition in the subject provided by teachers without a post A-level qualification in it

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Mathematics

  27

  13

  Biology

  18

  9

  Chemistry

  20

  10

  Physics

  31

  19

  General science1

  17 (71)

  11 (67)

  Other sciences1

  23 (69)

  16 (55)

  1 Figures exclude teachers (and tuition by teachers) with a post A-level qualification specifically in biology, chemistry or physics as well as those with general or other science qualifications. The bracketed figures show the result if this exclusion is not made.

  No information is available in respect of Surrey—the survey sample is too small to permit reliable estimates for individual education authorities.

  City Technology Colleges
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many city technology colleges are presently operating within the United Kingdom; and which are clearly scheduled to open in September 1989 and September 1990.

  Mr. Butcher
  Kingshurst CTC opened in September 1988, Nottingham and Teesside will open this September,606
  and Dartford, Bradford, Gateshead and the London school for performing arts and technology will open in September 1990.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much capital money has been identified for development of city technology colleges between their inception and the year 2000.

  Mr. Butcher
  A total of £13·3 million has been incurred on city technology college capital expenditure between the inception of the programme and the end of the 1988–89 financial year.

  Planned public expenditure to 1991–92, as published in Cmnd. 612, is £.106·6 million. The balance of expenditure between capital and recurrent costs will depend on a number of factors, including the nature and condition of premises acquired and the speed at which sponsors' plans are implemented.

  Plans for future years have yet to be considered.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much capital money has been provided by the Government to those city technology colleges in existence or scheduled to open shortly.

  Mr. Butcher
  Capital grants made to city technology colleges open or scheduled to open are as follows:

  £ million

  Kingshurst

  3·53

  Nottingham

  5·94

  Teesside

  3·34

  Gateshead

  0·30

  Bradford

  0·63

  Dartford

  0·24

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how the running costs of city technology colleges will be met; and what the anticipated source or sources of the revenue funding will be;

  (2) whether the running costs of a city technology college will be broadly comparable with similar costs associated with maintained schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  All normal running costs will be met through our recurrent grant to city technology colleges. The basis of this grant will be expenditure by local education authorities on maintained schools in similar areas. It will be open to city technology colleges, as it is to all schools, to raise additional funds from other sources.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how the travel expenses of children who live over 3 miles away from a city technology college will be met; and how the costs of uniform grants and other similar benefits will be met.

  Mr. Butcher
  Our recurrent grant to city technology colleges will be comparable to expenditure by local education authorities on schools in similar areas, including expenditure on home to school transport and on pupil support generally. It will be for the city technology college to decide how to meet these costs in specific cases.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what firms or other commercial interests have so far agreed to sponsor an entire city technology college and what are the names of these firms or other commercial interests.
  607
  Mr. Butcher
  None has been asked to do so. The capital costs of all CTCs will be shared between the Government and private sector sponsors and thereafter normal running costs will be met by annual grant from my right hon. Friend. Sponsors have already pledged £36 million towards the establishment of CTCs across the country—an unprecedented response to an education initiative.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how long the period of consultations with parents and governors prior to the decision by the governing body to submit an application to become a city technology college was at(a) Sylvan high school, (b) Haberdashers Aske's schools, Hatcham and (c) Riverside school.

  Mr. Butcher
  Consultations on the future of the Sylvan high school, which is a county school, were undertaken by Croydon education authority; and the authority subsequently published proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 to cease to maintain the school, so that a CTC might be established in its place. In the case of Riverside, also a county school, consultations were held on its future, but Bexley education authority subsequently decided against publishing section 12 proposals. The period for consultation was approximately three months and two months respectively. Our expectations on what public consultations should take place in these circumstances were set out in circular 3/87.

  The Haberdashers' Aske's are voluntary schools and I understand that the governors are considering seeking our leave to give notice of their discontinuation under the provisions of section 14 of the Education Act 1944. That section carries no requirement for public consultations to take place. Nevertheless, we have made clear in my right hon. Friend's statements on 28 July 1988 and 23 January this year that in considering any application for leave under section 14, where the intention is to establish a CTC, we expect that there shall have been prior public consultations.

  School Trips
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received on the subject of charges for school trips.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has received 540 letters on the subject of charges for school trips since the issue of the Department's draft circular of guidance in October 1988.

  School Discipline
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what steps he has taken to establish a working group to develop serious incidents reporting systems in response to recommendation 132·1 of the Elton report of the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools;

  (2) what steps he intends to take to clarify the legal basis of a teacher's authority over pupils in response to paragraph 73 of the Elton report on discipline in schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend announced on 13 March immediate Government action to follow up recommendations in the report of the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools. He is considering the 608
  recommendation on the legal basis of a teacher's authority and the recommendation, which was also directed to local education authorities, that a working group on serious incidents reporting systems be established.

  Student Grants
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average unit of funding for a university student assumed to be in the 1988–89 University Grants Committee settlement; by what percentage this assumed average unit was increased in real terms in the 1989–90 UFC settlement; and what assumptions were made for inflation in this increase.

  Mr. Jackson
  The public funding of universities is not determined on the basis of unit costs. The forecast level of inflation at the time of last year's Autumn Statement was five per cent. Including the additional funding for 1989 pay settlements, overall funding will increase by eight per cent. between 1988–89 and 1989–90. Student numbers are expected to increase by three per cent.

  Under-Secretary of State (Engagements)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the official engagements undertaken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for higher education since the beginning of May.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Since the beginning of May, I have had the following official engagements to date:

  2 May
  Meeting: delegation from China; Oral Parliamentary Questions; address: the Council for Industry and Higher Education; address for design awards dinner.

  3 May
  Meeting: Professor Ihsan Dogramaci, Chairman of Turkish Higher Education Council; dinner and address: Presidents of Research Councils of Europe, Japan and the USA.

  5 May
  Address: Careers Research and Advisory Centre Conference.

  8 May
  Visit: Liverpool University.

  9 May
  Address: The Centre for Policy Studies; meeting: Mr. Bill Stubbs of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  10 May
  Lunch: Geoffery Melling of the Further Education Staff College.

  11 May
  Interview: Time Magazine; address for the Opening of the Medical Research Council Radiobiology Unit; address: Industry/Education Seminar (Oxfordshire County Council); meeting: Professor Stuart of the Agriculture and Food Research Council.

  13 May
  Telephone call to Bertel Haarder, Danish Education Minister.

  15 May
  Visit: Rycotewood College; dinner and address for Sir Ralph Dahrendorf and senior academics at St. Anthony's College, Oxford.

  16 May
  Address: The General Synod Further and Higher Education Committee; dinner and address for the Reform Club Political Committee; telephone call to Willem Deetman, Dutch Education Minister.

  17 May
  Meeting: Lord Chilver and Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer of the Universities Funding Council.

  18 May
  Address: conference for Continuing Professional

  609
  Development; meeting: the Association of Metropolitan Authorities; meeting: The Campaign for Public Sector History; telephone call to Juergen Muellemann, German Education Minister.

  19 May
  Lunch and address for Professor Brewer and senior academics at Emmanuel College, Cambridge; 25th anniversary dinner at Darwin College, Cambridge.

  20 May
  Telephone call to Javier Solana Madariaga, Spanish Education Minister.

  23 May
  Address for the National Information Services Conference.

  24 May
  Address: the Building Industry Council Conference; meeting: the Institute of Chartered Accountants; meeting: Dominique Perben, Depute (MP) and Mayor of Chalon-sur Saone; address: European Agricultural Research Initiative (EURAGRI) Conference; meeting: Richard Hodges, Director of the British School in Rome.

  Vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised Cash limit

  £

  £

  £

  Class XII Vote 1

  493,133,000

  +1,003,000

  494,136,000

  Class XII Vote 2

  3,101,271,000

  +22,490,000

  3,123,761,000

  Class XII Vote 5

  824,368,000

  -8,493,000

  815,875,000

  Additional provision is sought as follows:

  (a) £25 million to make annual maintenance grants for expenditure on staff salaries and other running costs for schools which I have approved as grant maintained from September 1989 and from January 1990. This increase will be fully offset by recoupment, under section 81 of the Education Reform Act 1988, from the local authorities formerly maintaining the schools.

  (b) £1,003,000 for the professional, industrial and commercial updating programme to enable the selective funding of PICKUP activities in local authority colleges to proceed.

  (c) £23,493,000 towards the increased cost to universities, the Open university, the Royal college of art and the Cranfield institute of technology of employing non-clinical academic staff.

  Provision for grant-in-aid to the Natural Environment Research Council is reduced by £8,493,000 because expenditure on the construction of a new research vessel for the British Antarctic Survey has been deferred to 1990–91.

  The net increase of £15,000,000 will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Boards of Governors
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those people appointed by him to be independent members of the boards of governors of higher education corporations.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have today published in the Official Report a list of the people I appointed as independent members of the boards of governors of the higher education corporations.

  I was impressed by the high calibre of many of the candidates who were willing to put themselves forward for appointment as governors. It is heartening to see that so many able people from a wide variety of fields want to be associated with these higher education institutions. Governors have been drawn from across the spectrum of industry and commerce, from major companies to individual entrepreneurs and from all the professions. This will help to give the new sector the best possible start.
  610
  25 May
  Meeting: Sue Whittle, President of the Mature Students Union; meeting: Professor Sloane, Aberdeen University; hosting: Reception for the British/French Colloquium on Educational Exchange.

  26 May
  Visit to the Institut Laue-Langevin and the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in Grenoble.

  In addition, I hold daily meetings with officials of the Department and maintain informal contact with a variety of people from the world of education and science.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there are any changes to the cash limits for his Department's votes.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limits for the following votes will be revised as follows:

  Anglia Higher Education College

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  David Ball

  Chairman, David Ball Group (Engineering Manufacture)

  Sir Terence Beckett KBE

  Former Director General, CBI; Former Chairman and Chief Executive, Ford Motor Co.

  A. H. Cherry MBE

  Chairman and Managing Director, Countryside Properties plc

  Terence A. Coslett

  Former General Manager, Fisons Pest Control Ltd.; Chairman of Governors, Cambridgeshire College of Arts and Technology

  N. Hepworth OBE

  Director, Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

  G. R. Hoffman

  Consultant, Sir Murdoch MacDonald & Partners (Consulting Civil Engineers)

  Mrs. Diana Jakubowska

  Divisional Manager, Jakubowska Construction Group

  Terence James

  Chairman, Schering Holdings UK (Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, agro-chemicals)

  Richard King

  Managing Director and Chief Executive, Cambridge Electronic Industries

  R. W. Mellor CBE

  Secretary, Institute of Mechanical Engineers; Former Vice President of Ford (Europe) and Managing Director, Ford Product Development

  Graeme Minto

  Chairman, Domino Printing Sciences Ltd.

  John C. Shrigley

  Director of Personnel Services, GEC Marconi Limited

  Mrs. Jean Smith

  Chairman, North East Essex District Health Authority

  Note: Cambridgeshire College of Arts and Technology and Essex Institute of Higher Education merged on 1 April 1989 to form Anglia Higher Education College.
  611

  Bath College of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  C. J. Arnold-Baker

  Chief Executive, BBC Enterprises

  Mrs. Sally-Jane Coode

  Founder and Director, POLAMCO Ltd. (precision mechanical engineering company)

  James Dyson

  Chairman, Prototypes (design and development company)

  Peter Edwards

  Own firm—Investment Management

  John M. Mott

  Managing Director, A. Grantham Ltd. (Uniform Clothing Manufacturer)

  David C. Part

  Chairman, The General Trading Company (large retail shop)

  John Patience

  Regional Secretary and Solicitor, British Gas South Western

  Mrs. Stella Pine

  Divisional Financial Director, Rotork plc (manufacturing division)

  Nigel Reynolds

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Bath Press Ltd.

  Leslie Southwell

  Former Managing Director, Deltak Training Co. Ltd. (Software and consultancy training company)

  Ms. Mary Toman

  Independent Management Consultant—Strategic planning and marketing Founder, London Consulting Group

  Mrs. Fay Weldon

  Novelist and critic

  Miss Jillian M. White

  Senior Music Producer, BBC Bristol

  Birmingham Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Roydon Axe

  Director Design, Austin Rover Group

  Mrs. Valerie Bragg

  Principal, City Technology College, Kingshurst, Birmingham

  Rupert Crane

  Chairman, National Giro Bank (West Midlands); Director, Sharp Technology Fund plc

  Mrs. Margaret Savage

  District Personnel Manager, British Telecom

  Dr. John Sawkill

  Former Managing Director, Tube Investments Research & Development; Currently consultant to TI on Education & Industry

  Frank Shaw

  Finance Director, Royal Automobile Club

  David Waller

  Partner, Human Resources Group, Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  James Wilson

  General Manager, Bournville Village Trust

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Brian Bruce

  Director, British Textile Employers' Association

  Josephine Burns

  Assistant Director, North West Arts, Manchester

  Dr. Matthew Dixon

  Business Development Manager, National Computer Centre

  Eric H. Farnworth

  Director and General Manager, Lostock

  Mohammed Tarique Ghaffur

  Acting Chief Inspector, Greater Manchester Police

  J. Goldberg

  Retired Solicitor

  K. A. L. Johnson

  Engineering Director, Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  Julian G. Masters

  Managing Director, Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd.

  Pamela J. Senior

  General Secretary, Bolton Area Resource Centre

  John Joseph Shaw

  Partner, Bentley and Co., Chartered Accountants, Bolton

  J. P. Speak

  Chairman and Managing Director, Warburtons Limited

  612

  Bretton Hall College of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  George Robert Adams

  Former Senior Partner, Hadfield Cawkwell and Davidson, Architects, Engineers and Town Planners

  Stephen P. Battye

  Managing Director, Skopos Fabrics

  Margaret Booth

  Housewife; former Director of family Company with responsibilities in Sales and Finance

  John Henshaw

  Farmer; former conservative member of Wakefield MDC

  Professor William Middlebrook

  Former Dean of School of Education, Trent Polytechnic

  David B. Simpson

  Senior Partner, Simpson and Wood, Chartered Accountants; Director, Hepworth Ceramic Holdings plc

  Charles Russell Smith

  Chairman, Allied Textile Companies plc; Director, Lloyds Bank plc

  Duncan Smith

  Manager, Lloyds Bank Commercial Service

  Keith Paul Welton

  Director, Kirklees and Wakefield Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ltd.

  Brighton Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Michael J. Aldrich

  Chief Executive, ROCC Computers Ltd.

  David J. Burt

  Managing Director, Hellermann Deutsch Ltd.

  Mrs. Julia F. Cumberlege

  Chairman, Brighton Health Authority

  Chairman, National Association of District Health Authorities

  Clifford Thomas Dann

  Senior Partner, Clifford Dann & Partners, Chartered Surveyors, Estate Agents, Auctioneers, Development Advisers

  J. Garry Hawkes

  Managing Director, Gardner Merchant Director, Trusthouse Forte

  Gavin Henderson

  Artistic Director, Brighton Festival

  Michael C. McLaren Hume

  Company Director

  David Arthur Jones

  Consultant, Ewbank Preece Group Ltd. Chairman, Made in Britain Ltd.

  Dr. Edwin Norris

  Former Chief Inspector, HMI

  Oscar Roith

  Former Chief Engineer and Scientist, DTI President, Institution of Mechanical Engineers

  Bristol Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Dr. Robert H. Glendinning

  Retired General Practitioner

  Philip Gregory

  Regional Secretary, South West TUC

  Clive A. Halton

  Partner in charge, Deloitte, Haskins & Sells

  Michael C. J. Jackaman

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Allied Vintners Ltd

  Michael E. Kelsey

  Director and Chief Executive, Engineering Employers' Western Association

  Michael Knight

  Agent, Bank of England, Bristol

  John K. McDowall

  Chairman: Business Centre Wales Ltd; Horstmann Group Ltd; Bank of Wales (Jersey) Ltd; Director, Bank of Wales plc

  Bel Mooney

  Journalist and author

  Karen Morgan

  Non-Executive Director, Sussex County Building Society; Chairman, Marine Logic Ltd

  John D. Prescott Thomas

  Head of Broadcasting, BBC South & West

  Peter Ward

  Director, (Human Resources) European Operations, 3 COM

  John D. Wragg

  Director (Military Engines), Rolls Royce plc

  Magsood Zamir

  Executive (Special Projects), British Gas South Western

  613

  Buckinghamshire College of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Colin Berry

  European Education Manager, Tandem Computers Europe Incorporated

  Lucian Ercolani

  Chairman, Ercol Furniture Ltd.

  Owen Harris

  Former Financial Director, Compair Ltd.

  William Haynes

  Managing Director, Rye Machinery Ltd.

  Miss Gillian Humphreys

  Solicitor

  Nicholas G. Hurry

  Group Training Manager, Meyer International plc.

  David R. Jones

  Chief Executive, Wagon Finance Corporation Ltd.

  T. C. R. Jourdan

  Managing Director, Parker Knoll Ltd.

  Peter Land

  Chairman, Wycombe Health Authority

  John Lorenz

  Managing Director, Equity Capital for Industry

  The Hon. Mrs. Hilary Lewis

  Consultant Leisure Management

  Michael E. P. Moss

  Personnel Manager, Equity & Law Assurance Society

  Raymond C. Samuels

  Group Personnel Manager, Y. J. Lovell Group Services Ltd.

  Bulmershe College of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  William Barclay

  Director, Metal Box Company

  P. R. Daish

  Financial Director/Company Secretary, Strayfield International Ltd.

  Sir James Hamilton

  Former Permanent Under-Secretary, DES

  Sir Donald Hawley

  Former member of Diplomatic Service

  A. H. Mann

  Internal Training Consultant, Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd., Reading

  William L. Stansfeld-Taylor

  Former Chief Editor, BBC Monitoring Service, Soviet & Eastern European Affairs;

  Professor Jack Wrigley CBE

  Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Reading

  Note: Bulmershe College of Higher Education merged with the University of Reading on 1 April 1989

  Charlotte Mason College of Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Mrs. Meredyth Bell

  Dental Surgeon, School Governor

  D. Browning

  Chief Eduction Officer, Bedfordshire

  Sir Charles Carter

  Former Vice-Chancellor, University of Lancaster (retired)

  Madeline Davies

  Head, Queen Katherine School, Kendal

  David Hannah

  Head of Training, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering PLC

  Mrs. J. O'Hare

  Head, George Romney Junior School, Dalton in Furness

  J. Hole

  Works Secretary, BNFL, Seascale

  John Morris

  Assistnant Solicitor

  Prof. Alec Ross

  Professor of Education, Lancaster University

  Kenneth Walker

  Executive Deputy Chairman, Provincial Insurance PLC

  Coventry Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Michael Collett

  Policy Servicing Manager, Equity and Law, Coventry

  Patrick B. Forde

  Director and General Manager, Coventry Building Society

  Leonard P. Grice, OBE

  Personnel Director, GEC Telecommunications, Ltd.

  Angela C. Griffin

  Chief Executive Officer, Redditch Borough Council

  614

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Geoffrey Hughes

  Barrister, GKN plc.

  Stuart S. G. Linnell

  Deputy Group Managing Director, Midlands Radio Holdings PLC and Chief Executive, Sound

  Robert P. Lister

  Former Director, Engineering Employers' West Midlands Association (retired)

  Frederick A. M. Motture

  Personnel Director, Coventry Region, GEC Plessey Telecommunications

  Merrick W. Taylor

  Deputy Chairman and Managing Director, Motor Panels (Coventry) Ltd.

  Geoffrey H. Whalen

  Managing Director, Peugeot Talbot Motor Co. Ltd.

  Crewe and Alsager College of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Cyril Acton

  Managing Director, ERF Ltd, Sandbach

  Vic Harris

  Personnel Manager, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited, Crewe

  Derek B Jennings

  Director, Jennings Coachwork Ltd, Crewe

  Dr John A Payne

  Information Systems Manager ICI Chemicals and Polymers

  Phillip Plant

  General Manager, Refractory Production, Josiah Wedgwood and Sons Ltd

  Andrew P Rigby

  Solicitor, Private Practice

  Mrs. Barbara Sim Mutch

  Superintendent, Cheshire Constabulary

  David Withers

  Manager, Allied Dunbar Financial Services

  Dorset Institute of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Marcus Beresford

  Managing Director, Plessey Controls Ltd., Poole

  Martin C. Copp

  Chairman, Coolmation Ltd., Ringwood; Chairman, Wessex Board of Institute of Directors

  Baroness Caroline Cox

  Former Director of Nursing Education Research Unit, Chelsea College, University of London; Member of House of Lords with special interest in education

  Norman Drew

  Mar aging Director, The Ryvita Co. Ltd.

  Alexander C. McKinlay

  Partner, Peat Marwick & McLintock, Poole

  Thomas Stanley Monkcom

  Former Managing Director and Chairman, The De Vilbiss Co. Ltd.

  Professor William Penny

  Chairman, Penny & Giles International plc

  John D. Slater

  Director, Southern Tourist Board, Eastleigh

  Roy J. Tazzyman

  Managing Director, Davy McKee Ltd.

  Ealing College of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Geoffrey Cox

  Chairman, Haymills Ltd.

  Miss Tina Day

  Head of Policy, National Consumer Council

  Mrs. Judith Exelby

  Television Presenter

  Robin D. Gill

  Director, 1970 Trust Ltd.

  John G. Hendy, QC

  Queens Counsel

  Mrs. Dorothy MacKenzie

  Managing Director of Brand New (Product Origination) Ltd.

  Miss Helena Molyneux

  Vice President Personnel Europe, Middle East, Africa Bankers Trust Co.

  Colin Monk

  Managing Director, Memtec Europe Ltd.

  Dr. G. N. J. Port

  Senior Managing Consultant, Peat Marwick McLintock

  John Francis Purnell, GM

  Chief Superintendent, Metropolitan Police, Officer Commanding Ealing Division

  615

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Miss Brenda Seel

  Personnel Services Manager, Taylor Woodrow Group

  Dr. John Spreadborough

  Managing Director, J. Spreadborough & Co. Ltd.

  J. Q. Thompson

  Director, Coopers & Lybrand

  Polytechnic of East London

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Valerie Aggett

  Chairman and Principal, HLT Group of Colleges; Solicitor; won Queen's award for exports

  Ms. Jocelyn Barrow

  Consultant on educational issues Governor of the BBC

  Peter Blower

  Scientific Adviser, Beechams Pharmaceutical

  Alex Ferry

  General Secretary, Confederation of Ship Building and Engineering Unions

  Kypros Nicholas

  Solicitor, Nicholas & Co.

  Allan S. J. Morgan

  Personnel Director, Rhone-Poulenc Ltd.

  John Perry

  Chairman & Managing Director, Unisys Ltd. (UK)

  Andrew Rork

  Creative Director, Saatchi & Saatchi

  Naomi Sargent

  Senior Commissioning Editor, Educational Programming, Channel Four; former Professor and Pro Vice-Chancellor at the Open University

  Roger S. Shashoua

  Chairman, The Shashoua Foundation

  Ronald Shepherd

  Manager, Education, Training and Personnel, Ford Motor Co. Ltd; Chairman of CBI Education & Training Committee;

  John Tarrington

  Senior Consultant, Peat Marwick McLintock

  Jean Tomlin

  Personnel Manager, Prudential Assurance Co.

  Edge Hill College of Further Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  B. D. Blake

  Chairman, Venture Capital Ltd., Manchester

  Jonathan Chaytor

  Senior Partner, Chaytor Steele and Co.

  Charles Coombes

  Manager of Group Central Services, Ocean Transport and Trading plc

  John Cowdall

  Chief Executive Officer, West Lancashire District Council

  M. Ford

  Headteacher, Heys Primary School, Ashton-Under-Lyne

  Dr. Janet Kear

  Assistant Director, The Wildfowl Trust; Curator, The Wildfowl Trust Centre, Martin Mere, Burscough

  Raymond McManus

  Official, Transport and General Workers Union, West Lancashire District

  Brian Millner

  Director (External Relations), Pilkington plc, St. Helens, Merseyside

  R. A. Wilson

  Director (Chief Executive), Thomas Bell International Ltd., Liverpool

  Falmouth school of an and design

  Independent members

  Affiliation

  Michael Bristow

  Former deputy treasurer, Cornwall county council

  Diane Colville

  High sheriff of Cornwall

  Richard Anthony Foster

  Artist, former arts administrator

  John Girdlestone

  Finance-managing director, Rueckes Engineering Ltd. (automotive design engineers)

  Clive W. Grownow

  Director personnel and production, English China Clays

  616

  Independent members

  Affiliation

  John Halkes

  Director, Newlyn Orion Gallery

  Gerard Mansell

  Former deputy director-general, BBC; member, UK National Commission for UNESCO; chairman, British Committee of Journalist in Europe

  Michael Edward Richards

  Solicitor

  Sir Kenneth Sharp

  Partner, Baker Tilly chartered accountants

  David Julian Taylor

  Retail director, Barclays bank

  Mrs. Jessica D. E. Thomas

  Professional writer and broadcaster

  Hatfield Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Dudley R. Cloake

  Director of Management Services, John Lewis Partnership plc

  J. David OBE

  Managing Director, Catomance Ltd.

  Peter Cecil Farmer

  Manager (Human Resources), British Petroleum

  James F. McGown

  Director and General Manager, Lee Valley Water Company

  T. G. Mercer OBE

  Chairman, Thomas Mercer Ltd.

  Hugh Metcalfe

  Former Deputy Chief Executive, British Aerospace Ltd; non-Executive Director, Hunting Engineering

  Dr. Katie Petty-Saphon

  Publishing Manager, Institution of Electrical Engineers

  Mrs. Sheila Roy

  Director of Nursing, North-West Thames Regional Health Authority

  A. Stephenson

  Engineering Manager of Civil Aircraft Division, British Aerospace plc

  Dr. Richard Sykes

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Glaxo Group Research Ltd.

  M. Tempany OBE

  Vice-Principal (External Affairs), Kings College London

  The Polytechnic Huddersfield

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Mrs. Jane Carter

  Former Councillor of Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Reginald Cross

  District President, AEU

  Peter Fielden

  Chairman and Managing Director, Olympic Holdings (South West) Ltd.

  Lord John Gregson

  Director, Fairey Holdings

  J. Haigh

  Managing Director, F. Drake & Co. Ltd.; Chairman, F. Drake Fibres Ltd.

  Norman Haigh

  General Manager, Millers Oils Limited

  Mrs. Kay Hill

  Partner, David Law & Company, Sheffield

  Dr. John S. Hughes

  Consultant Psychiatrist

  Brian Ward

  Senior Partner, Revell Ward, Chartered Accountants, Huddersfield

  Humberside college of higher education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Roger Ewart Brown

  District General Manager, Hull Health Authority

  Ian Colquhoun

  City Architect, Hull City Council

  Anthony A. Dunn

  Works General Manager, BP Chemicals Hull

  Michael Edwards

  Divisional Director and General Manager, British Aerospace, Brough

  Frank Alan Flear

  Director, Fitch, Lovell plc, Chairman and Managing Director, Bluecrest Foods Ltd, Grimsby

  Dr. J. H. Hooper CBE TD

  Chairman, East Riding Health Authority

  David Frederick McGowan

  Director, Hull and Humberside Housing Association

  617

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Andrew Milner

  Managing Director, H umber side Fertilisers plc, Hull

  Christopher M. Oughtred

  Joint Managing Director, William Jackson and Son plc

  Isobel Shepherdson

  Self employed Education Consultant to LEAs (notably Humberside)

  Donald G. Snelgrove

  Bishop of Hull

  John Francis White

  Divisional Director, Faber Prest plc

  Jennifer Wilson

  Partner with firm of Solicitors

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Edward Booth-Clibborn

  Chairman, Designers and Art Directors Association of London; Consultant and Lecturer

  David Callcott

  Chairman and Managing Director, John Michael Design Consultants Ltd.

  George Trevor Carney

  Senior Partner, Argles and Court, Solicitors

  Graham Clarke

  Professional artist and designer

  Jill (Diana) Cochrane

  Professional Broadcaster on radio and television

  Dr. R. H. Cragg

  Director, Pressprint Publicity (Kent) Ltd. (advertising agency)

  Sir David Crouch

  Chairman, Theatres Trust Former MP for Canterbury

  Miss J. Fraser

  Former Head of Industrial Design Division, The Design Council; CNAA Assessor at Ravensbourne Graphics

  G. Gilbert

  Managing Director, Pierre Elegante Ltd.

  P. D. Marsh

  Architect, Dudley Marsh Son & Partners; Surveyor to Canterbury Cathedral

  Mrs. Fiona E. Miller

  Buying Controller, British Home Stores plc

  Peter Smith

  Deputy Marketing Director, British Airways

  W. Taylor

  Consultant, Arthur Young's Former County Treasurer, Kent County Council

  Kingston Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Reginald W. Bailey OBE

  Former Managing Director, Putney Division, Smiths Industries Aerospace & Defence systems

  Mrs. Joan Bingley

  Company Secretary, Imry Merchant Developers plc

  Ronald F. Coleman

  Chief Engineer and Scientist, DTI

  J. Graham Day

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Rover Group

  Royston Doughty

  Managing Director, Duracell (UK) Ltd.

  George T. Freeman

  Partner, Freeman, Robertson, Leese Design Consultants

  Donald F. Heaver

  General Manager, Marks & Spencer plc, Oxford Street Store

  Jacob Lewin

  Senior Partner, Lewin Fryer & Partners Consulting Engineers

  Kenneth McAinsh

  Managing Director, Putney Division, Smiths Industries Aerospace & Defence Systems

  Eric A. G. Morgan

  Former Managing Director, British American Cosmetics

  Mrs. Jane Priestman

  Director Architecture, Design & Environment, British Rail Board

  Christopher R. West

  Director & General Manager, British Aerospace plc, Military Aircraft Division

  618

  Lancashire Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Clifford Birch

  Regional Manager, Royal Bank of Scotland plc

  Christopher Crewdson

  Managing Director, Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd

  David Eaves

  Managing Director, Northern Region, Prudential Property Services

  Sir Frank Kennedy

  Ex Diplomat; Director, British Airways

  Janice Langley

  Manager of Catalyst—the Museum of the Chemical Industry; Part-time student of the Polytechnic

  Sally Medlyn

  Deputy Director, North West Arts

  Gloria Oates

  General Manager, Rochdale Health Authority

  Frank Roe

  Former Managing Director, Military Aircraft Division, British Aerospace

  Keith Scott

  Chairman, Building Design Partnership

  Iain Smith

  Chairman, Baxi Ltd

  Tony Stephens

  Director, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd

  David Taylor

  Managing Director, Lancashire Enterprises Ltd

  Michael Watson

  Chairman, Fentons (Engineering/Design)

  Leeds Polytechnic

  Independent members

  Affiliation

  Peter Alcock

  Chairman, Hunslet (Holdings) plc

  Ruth Bundey

  Head of a Leeds Solicitors' firm

  Paul H. Corby

  Regional Secretary, UCATT

  Yvette Gallagher

  Company Secretary and Principal Coordinator, PATH Ltd.

  Anthony Ernest Grant

  Partner in Charge, Coopers and Lybrand, Leeds

  David Pickersgill

  Managing Director, Pickersgill Kaye

  Peter Shakeshaft

  Director, John Waddington plc

  Leslie Silver

  Chairman, Kalon Group plc

  Leicester Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Professor Peter Bell

  Professor of Surgery, University of Leicester

  Howard Davies

  Controller of the Audit Commission for local authorities in England and Wales

  Mrs. Elizabeth Esteve-Coll

  Director, Victoria and Albert Museum since 1988

  Simon Everard

  Chairman, Ellis and Everard plc; Deputy Chairman, Alliance and Leicester Building Society

  Sir Ronald Halstead

  Deputy Chairman, British Steel

  William Irwin

  Chairman and Managing Director, Glovease Shoes Ltd.

  Russell Kempton

  Chairman, T. W. Kempton Ltd.

  Dame Anne Mueller

  Second Permanent Secretary, Her Majesty's Treasury

  Dr. Udai Singh

  Head of Aerodynamics, GEC

  Dr. Joseph Valentine

  Deputy Chairman, Fisons plc; Chairman, Fisons Pharmaceuticals

  Dr. John White

  Group Managing Director, BBA Group; Non-Executive Director, Burgess Group plc

  John Whitehead

  Chairman, John Whitehead Textiles Ltd. & M. Harrison & Co. Finishers Ltd.

  619

  Liverpool Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Charles B. Corden

  Senior Partner, C. B. Corden & Co., Chartered Surveyors

  Henry Cotton

  Development Director, Owen Owen Ltd.

  Phillida G. S. Entwhistle

  Director, J. Davey & Sons (Liverpool) Ltd.

  John H. Forrest

  District General Manager, British Telecom, Liverpool

  Stanton Thomas Fuller

  Chief Executive, Wavertree Technology Park Co.

  Ms. Jane Kennedy

  Branch Secretary, Liverpool City General Branch NUPE

  John Moores

  Main Board Director, The Littlewoods Organisation

  H. M. P. Robinson

  Director, Merseyside Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Professor Alec Smith

  Division Manager, Unilever Research

  London Institute

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Alan Bennett

  Managing Director, Astral Ltd., Director, House of Fraser Group

  Sir Alan Bowness

  Director, Tate Gallery; Director, Henry Moore Foundation

  Robert J. Bright

  Chairman and Managing Director, Wells of Mayfair (Tailors)

  Ronald David Carter

  Chairman, DCA Design International Ltd.; Chairman, Conran Foundation

  Colin Cullimore

  Managing Director, Retail Division, Union International plc

  Bernard Gay

  Former HMI

  Jack Gold

  Director TV and film documentaries and fiction

  Rodney Fitch

  Chairman, Fitch and Co.

  Mrs. Angela Lascelles

  Director, OLIM

  Julian Markham

  Chairman Glengate Holdings plc

  David Padbury

  Director, South Eastern Region, British Printing Industries Federation

  James Pilditch

  President and former Chief Executive, Allied International Designers

  Mrs. Jenifer Rosenberg

  Managing Director, J. & J. Fashions Ltd.

  Loughborough College of An and Design

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Paul E. Atkinson

  Design Director, Atkinson Design Associates

  John Carter

  Chairman and Managing Director, Carter Design Group Ltd.

  Professor D. E. N. Davies

  Vice Chancellor, University of Technology, Loughborough

  Andrew Fairbairn

  Former Director of Education, Leicestershire

  Martin W. Fear

  Design Director, Derwent Upholstery Limited

  Raymond Hale

  County Treasurer, Leicestershire County Council

  David Manley

  Art, Crafts and Photography officer, East Midlands Arts

  Mrs. Jan P. Moscovitch

  Design Manager, Moygashel Ltd.

  Mrs. Cathy Stephens

  Design Director, Cathy Stephens Jewellery

  Michael Taylor

  Chairman, the Taylor Partnership

  Luton College of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Julie Bonner

  Personnel Manager, Monarch Airlines

  David Brown CBE

  Chairman, AWD Ltd., Artix Ltd., Multidrive Ltd. (Engineering & Manufacturing)

  620

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Clifford Bygrave

  Senior Partner, Arthur Young

  Peter Henman

  Chairman, T. & E. Neville (Construction)

  Philip Hoskins

  Secretary-General, Luton, Bedford and District Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Anthony Lines

  Personnel Manager, Vauxhall Motors Ltd.

  Derek Ludlow

  Chairman Ludlow Group (Automobile Engineering)

  Professor John Matthews

  Director, AFRC Engineering

  David A. Palmer

  Director of Finance & Administration, FI Group plc (Computer software)

  George Slessor

  Assistant Divisional Organiser, Amalgamated Engineering Union

  Mrs. Julia Thorn

  Managing Director, Corporate & International Division of Paragon Communications plc

  Anthony Whitear

  Director, Research & Development, Whitbreads plc

  Dr. Gerald Watson

  Managing Director, Measurement Technology Ltd. (Electronic equipment manufacturer)

  Manchester Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Sir Christopher Ball

  Chairman, National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education in England

  Mrs. Yvonne Bradbury

  Director of Promotions, Greater Manchester Economic Development Corporation Ltd

  William I Corlett

  Solicitor

  Miss Frances Dean

  Former Secretary, Manchester TUC

  Bryan D. Langton CBE

  Chairman, Holiday Inns International

  Philip G. Livesey

  Former partner in charge, Coopers & Lybrand (North West Region)

  Geoffrey Manton

  Former Chairman, Sedgwick UK Ltd, North West (International Insurance Brokers)

  Louis Mitchell

  Management Consultant

  David E. Plowright

  Managing Director, Granada TV

  Peter G. Schaefer

  Chairman & Executive, Lawtex plc

  John A. Stanley

  Senior Executive, Marks and Spencer plc

  Alan A. Watson

  Agent, Bank of England (Manchester Branch)

  Thomas Weatherby CBE

  Executive Chairman, Whitecroft plc (textiles, building supplies)

  Middlesex Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Clive H. Bateson

  Managing Director, European Operations, Atlantic Petroleum Corporation

  Dinah Casson

  Partner Casson/Mann Design Consultancy

  David Hyde

  Deputy Marketing Director, British Airways

  Professor John C. Levy OBE

  Director, Engineering Profession of The Engineering Council; Engineering Consultant to Shell International Marine

  Dr. E. L. Neufeld

  Director, Systems Integration, IBM Europe

  Gordon C. Pettit

  General Manager, British Rail, Southern Region

  Howard T. H. M. Phelps

  Former Director of Operations, British Airways; Honorary Visiting Professor, Middlesex Polytechnic

  Judith Henley Sear

  District Nurse Officer, Barnet Health Authority

  George W. A. Shiells

  Chairman, Morgan-Grampian Local Newspapers

  621

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Francis P. Tridgell

  Former Senior Deputy Divisional General Manager, National Westminster Bank; Chairman or Director of various banking enterprises

  Nene College

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Peter Bennett

  Managing Partner, Howes Percival, Solicitors

  Jim Burrell

  Group Training Manager, Lex Automotive Ltd.

  Christopher Davenport

  Joint Managing Director, Robert Horne Group plc.

  Michael Dove

  Managing Director, Express Lift Co. Ltd.

  Peter Elwood

  Chief Executive, Barclaycard

  Jeffrey Greenwell

  Chief Executive, Northants County Council

  Lady Gayle Robinson

  Member of the Northamptonshire Association of Youth Clubs

  Dr. Sheila Shribman

  Consultant Paediatrician, Princess Marina Hospitals

  Paul Southworth

  President and Chief Executive, Avon Cosmetics Ltd.

  Anthony Stoughton-Harris

  Executive Vice-Chairman, Nationwide Anglia Building Society; Chairman of the Building Societies Association

  The Rt. Rev. Win. Westwood

  Bishop of Peterborough

  Newcastle Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  William Reay Atkinson

  Chairman, Northern Development Company Ltd.; Former Assistant Under-Secretary, DTI

  Mrs. Margaret Barbour

  Chairman and Controlling Director, J. Barbour and Sons Ltd.

  Miss Dorothy Blenkinsop

  Regional Nursing Officer, Northern Regional Health Authority

  John Frost

  Television/Media Consultant; previously BBC Regional TV Manager (North East and Cumbria)

  Lord Glenamara

  Member of House of Lords; Former Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education

  Bent Henriksen, OBE

  Consultant to Industry in UK and USA

  Charles Francis Herzberg

  Consultant; Enterprise Counsellor, DTI; Director, Northern Investors Co. Ltd.

  Peter McKendrick

  A Senior and Managing Partner, Sanderson Townend and Gilbert (Surveyors)

  James Christopher Sharp

  Managing Director, Northern Rock Building Society

  Graeme C. Stanton

  Editor, "Evening Chronicle", Newcastle

  R. N. D. Stephenson

  Managing Director, Newcastle Breweries Ltd.

  John Streeton Ward

  Regional Director, Barclays Bank plc, Northern Region

  Susan M. Wilson

  General Manager—Personnel (Divisional Responsibility) Vickers Defence Systems

  North Riding College

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  John Jackson Carrier

  General Manager (Operations), Scarborough Building Society

  H. J. Evans

  Chief Executive and Clerk, North Yorkshire County Council

  Andrew R. Gare

  Managing Director, Boythorpe Ltd.

  Professor Peter H. J. H. Gosden

  Chairman of School of Education, University of Leeds

  622

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Professor G. R. J. Jones

  Professor Historical Geography, University of Leeds

  Arthur William Kendrick

  Head of Personnel, Rowntree PLC

  A. D. McCain

  Deputy Managing Director, McCains Foods (GB) Ltd.

  Mrs. Mary McCormack

  Headteacher, Hinderwell Primary School

  G. T. V. Pindar

  Chairman, G. A. Pindar & Son Lid.; Chairman, Scarborough Building Society

  Hilary Susan Truefitt

  Partner, Buchannan & White (Solicitors)

  Oxford Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Peter Bagnall

  Managing Director, W. H. Smith

  Dr. Paul Brankin

  The Oxford Instruments Group plc Managing Director, Oxford Medical Ltd.

  Stephen Dexter

  Senior Partner, Grant Thornton, Chartered Accountants

  Bernard Harty

  Former County Treasurer, Oxfordshire County Council

  Dr. Paul Kent

  Former member Oxford City Council Lecturer

  Mrs. Caroline Miles

  Chairman, Oxfordshire Health Authority

  Andrew Smith MP

  Member of Parliament for Oxford, East

  Portsmouth Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Charles Brims

  Chief Executive, Portsmouth & Sunderland Newspapers Ltd.

  Maurice G. Hardy

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Pall Europe Ltd. (Engineering)

  James W. Harper

  Architect—own practice

  John Huffell

  IBM UK Resident Director, Hampshire

  Victor J. Jenner

  Chairman, Planning and Resource Allocation Panel—Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority

  Nicholas Jonas

  Chairman, Hampshire Development Association; formerly with IBM on main UK Holdings Board

  Jerome O'Hea

  Joint Group Managing Director of Colt Group Ltd. (Manufacturing company)

  Sandra Roberts

  Assistant Company Secretary, Legal and Administration Department, Lederle Laboratories

  Dr. Helen M. Rule

  Marine Archaeologist and Author

  Charles H. Tidbury

  Director, Whitbread; President/Chairman of various trusts and foundations

  Stuart H. Waring

  Chairman, Heaton Holdings Ltd.

  George G. Zahler

  Consultant to Thermal Scientific Group plc; Director of Dartec Ltd. and of Rosand Precision Ltd.

  AD. Zemenides

  Managing Director, Sealectro Ltd. (subsidiary of BICC plc)

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Christopher William Bellamy

  Barrister at law

  Richard Anthony Brook

  Managing Director, Scientific Instruments Research Association

  Brian Markham Cooper

  Formerly Registrar, Royal College of Art

  Neville Fox-Davies

  Art Director, Reader's Digest

  Mrs. Lyn Christine How

  Head of International Unit, Pensions Fund Department, Phillips and Drew

  Ray Leigh

  Non-Executive Director and Design Consultant, Gordon Russell plc

  623

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Dr. Janet Morgan

  Adviser to the BBC, Panasonic UK Ltd., Granada Group; formerly member of the Central Policy Review Staff at Cabinet Office

  Guy David Neely

  Finance Director, Mercers Company

  Mark Stevens

  Director of Staff Relations, Thames Television plc

  Royal Northern College of Music

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Sebastian De Ferranti

  Director, GEC plc; Director, National Nuclear Corporation

  Sir Charles Groves CBE

  Conductor

  David Hunter MBE

  Chairman, Henry Cooke Lumsden plc; Director, Halifax Building Society

  Mrs. Joyce Hytner

  Manager, External Affairs, Granada Television Ltd

  Michael Kennedy OBE

  Journalist and writer on music; formerly Northern Editor, Daily Telegraph

  Christopher Kenyon

  Chairman & Group Chief Executive, William Kenyon & Sons Ltd

  Sir Idwal Pugh KCB

  Chairman, Chartered Trust Ltd; Director of Standard Chartered Bank & of Halifax Building Society

  Robert Scott

  Managing Director, Manchester Theatres Ltd

  Simon Towneley

  Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire; Director of Granada Television

  Salford College of Technology

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Anthony Boore

  Managing Director, Manchester Evening News

  David Coleman

  Director of Management, Colegate-Palmolive Limited

  Sarah Dallas

  Designer/Partner for own company 'Sarah Dallas' (fashion)

  Peter Foster

  District General Manager, Salford Health Authority

  Dr. Jack Goldberg

  Retired Solicitor; Chairman, Salford University Council

  D. J. Kent

  Regional Manager, Copthorne Hotels Ltd.

  Peter Lauener

  Area Manager, Training Commission

  Susan Roberts

  Editor, Open Air (live programme)

  Robert Shields

  Chief Executive, Trafford Park Development Corporation

  Simon Sperryn

  Chief Executive, Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Gil Thompson

  Chief Executive, Manchester Airport plc

  David Wilson

  Director of Banking, British Linen Bank

  David Woods

  Chairman and Managing Director, Fearnley Construction Group

  Sheffield Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Dr. Debjani Chatterjee

  Principal Community Relations Officer with the Sheffield Council for Racial Equality

  Richard Field OBE

  Deputy Chairman, J & J Dyson plc; Chairman, Kent Aerospace Castings Ltd

  Mrs Jasmine Harfoot

  Managing Director, Land Instruments International Ltd

  Peter Horsepool

  Managing Director, Ackroyd & Abbott Ltd

  John Illingworth

  Retired Chief Shopstewards' Convenor, British Forgemasters

  Ian A Johnston

  Deputy Director General, Training Commission

  624

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Nicholas C Kemp

  Director, Engineering Employers' (Sheffield) Association

  Malcolm Newman

  City Treasurer, Sheffield City Council

  Peter J Newman

  Chief Executive—Metals, Davy McKee

  Derek Simpson

  District Secretary, AUEW

  Harold B Stokes

  Chairman & Chief Executive, Bassett Foods plc

  David Stone

  Managing Director, Stocksbridge Engineering Steels

  Ms Clare Venables

  Director, Crucible Theatre

  Southampton IHE

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Dr. Stanley Crooks

  Chairman, Pirelli Group

  Peter William Doble

  Managing Director, Southampton Container Terminals Ltd. (subsidiary of Associated British Ports)

  John Fallow

  Regional Director of Personnel, British Gas plc, Southern

  B. R. J. Gill

  Senior Partner with Messrs Ernst & Whinney

  Dr. Jan Harding

  Equal Opportunities Consultant

  Malcolm Hedley Le Bas

  Solicitor with Paris, Smith & Randall

  Michael John Love

  Managing Director, Lloyd Instruments plc

  Ian A. Pirie

  Chairman and Managing Director, Hydralon Ltd.

  John Rendle

  Managing Director, Shell Tankers (UK) Ltd.

  James Edward Stanley

  Chairman and Managing Director, Gabare Ltd.

  Rita Steel

  Sales Associate, Allied Dunbar Assurance plc

  South West London College

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Dr. Walter Vego Baker

  Chief Executive, South London Business Initiatives

  Mrs. Janet Elliott

  Director-General, Pitman Examination Institute

  Colonel Thomas R. Fairclough

  Resettlement Training Policy Officer, Ministry of Defence

  T. G. P. Rogers

  Chairman, BTEC; Chairman, Regional Health Authority

  Dr. Roy Salter

  Director of Corporate Planning, BAT Industries plc

  Dr. Margaret L. Spong

  Education Secretary, Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  Michael David Stott

  Regional Communications and External Programmes Manager, IBM UK Ltd.

  Roger Donald McSweeny

  Director of Personnel, Trustees Savings Bank

  Efstratios Zographos

  Finance Director, TV-am plc

  Polytechnic South West

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Charles Ansell

  Former Chairman of Devon County Council

  Professor B. L. Bayne

  Director, Plymouth Marine Laboratory

  R. Bentley

  Planning Officer—Plymouth City Council; Member of Plymouth Health Authority

  Mrs. Mary Gretton

  Executive Committee, Devon Science and Technology Regional Organisation; former Personnel Manager, Plessey Semiconductors Ltd.

  Roger J. Harris

  Senior Partner, Peat Marwick McLintock

  625

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Alan J. Macfarlane

  Former Managing Director, Farley Health Products Ltd. (Subsidiary of Glaxo Holdings plc)

  Victor Parsons

  Managing Director, Wandel and Goltermann Ltd.

  Dr. Patricia Pay

  Solicitor; Chair of Exeter and District Community Health Council

  Charles Stuart

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Brymon Airways

  Peter Thorpe

  Former Bank Manager

  John C. C. Warren

  Deputy Chairman, Company of Designers plc

  Staffordshire Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  J. Broome CBE

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Alton Towers Ltd.

  G. W. Buckley

  Director and General Manager, GEC Turbine Generators Ltd.—Generator Division

  Ms. Valerie Burton

  Planning Manager, Bass plc

  Patrick P. Byrne

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Wedgwood Group

  Stanley W. Clarke

  Chairman and Chief Executive, St. Modwen Properties

  T. E. Cowlishaw

  Company Secretary, West Midland Estates Ltd.; Consultant

  D. A. Isherwood

  Director, Century Oils Ltd.

  Mrs. Helen S. Perkins

  Personnel Co-ordinator—British Steel

  David Scahill

  Managing Director, Cannon Industries Ltd.

  Michael Shaw

  Chairman and Managing Director, Britannia Building Society

  Sunderland Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  William Darling

  Retail Pharmacist; Chairman, South Tyneside Health Authority

  Kenneth Douglas

  Former Managing Director, Austin & Pickersgill Shipbuilders

  Stephen Harbottle

  Senior Partner, Wilkinson Maughan Solicitors

  William Hay

  Chief Executive, Newcastle Initiative

  Frank Nicholson

  Joint Managing Director, Vaux Breweries plc

  Herbert Rice

  Chartered Accountant, Spicer & Pegler

  Ms. Esmee Slattery

  Staff Tax Partner, Price Waterhouse

  Peter Wickens

  Director of Personnel, Nissan (UK) Ltd.

  Peter Vardy

  Chairman and Managing Director, Reg Vardy Ltd.

  Teeside Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Dr. John N. Bridge

  Chief Executive, Northern Development Company

  Mrs. Susan Bush

  Manager Personnel & Administration, Davy McKee (Stockton) Ltd

  Mrs. Joy Chapman

  District Nursing Officer, North Tees Health Authority

  David J. Grant

  Chairman, Darchem Ltd; Deputy Chairman, William Baird plc

  Miss Stella Guy

  District Officer, Transport & General Workers Union, Stockton

  John P. Hackney

  Chief Executive, Tees & Hartlepool Port Authority

  Richard Harker

  Managing Director, Harkers Engineering

  626

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  G. Hunter

  Chief Executive, Belasis Hall Technology Park

  Richard Lines

  Chairman & Chief Executive, Marlborough Technical Management

  Christopher Shaw

  Chairman, Micro-Metalsmiths Ltd (Light Precision Engineering)

  Dr. James Smith

  Process Engineering Group Manager, Research & Technology Dept, ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd

  Dr. Robert G. J. Telfer

  Director, Manchester Business School

  Michael D. Ward

  Director, Teeside Works, British Steel Corporation

  Thames Valley College of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Dr. John Frederick Cavalla

  Vice President of Research & Development, Wyeth Research (UK)

  Miss Pamela Mary Cooper

  District Nursing Officer, East Berkshire Area Health Authority

  John Danzeisen

  Finance Director, ICI Paints Division

  D. W. Gration

  Chief Operating Officer, Celltech Limited (Biopharmaceulicals)

  Professor Thomas Kempner

  Principal, Henley The Management College

  Brian R. Law

  Former Managing Director, Mars Ltd.

  Mrs. E. M. McClure

  Personnel Manager, AEG (UK) Ltd.

  Ms. Janet Nuttall

  Strategic Human Resource Consultant, Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Godfrey Harland Odds

  Former Deputy Leader, Berkshire County Council

  G. Pye

  Personnel Director, Trust House Forte Hotels (UK)

  Leslie Peter Robinson

  Director & Chief Executive of South Bucks & East Berks Chamber of Commerce & Industry

  John Michael Spurr

  Chief Manager, Corporate Banking Group, National Westminster Bank plc

  John W. Thompson

  Deputy Managing Director, Smiths Industries plc

  Trent Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  E. Cliffe

  Board member of Boots Company Group & Managing Director of Industrial Division

  Dr. Christine Hopton

  General Manager, Community Services, Nottingham Health Authority

  Stephen John Hyde

  Chairman & Managing Director, Hicking Pentecoste plc; Chairman & Managing Director, Globebirch-Business Consultancy

  His Hon. Judge T. O. Kellock QC

  Circuit Judge

  I. McLean

  Chairman, Plessey Communications Systems Ltd & Chairman, Plessey Finance Ltd

  Stephen John Plummer

  Deputy Chairman, Lee Colourplan Ltd (Textiles)

  T. Richmond

  National Managing Partner, Pannell Kerr Forster Chartered Accountants

  Gordon Ralph Waine

  Regional Executive Director National Westminster Bank plc

  D. White

  Deputy Chairman, National Freight Consortium Ltd; Chairman, Nottingham Health Authority

  West Surrey College of Art and Design

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  L. Anthony Bracking

  Consultant in Public Affairs

  George Burnett

  Managing Director, Ashlead Group plc

  627

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  David Gillespie

  Sculptor and Business Consultant; Founder of David Gillespie Associates

  Professor David Hamilton

  Professor of Ceramics and Glass, Royal College of Art

  Richard Hoare

  Partner, Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, Solicitors

  Ian T. Jenkin, OBE

  Director, The Open College of the Arts

  Audrey Levy

  Self employed Designer and Design Consultant; Teacher

  John Miller

  Head of Features and Education with Television South

  Creighton Redman

  Chief Manager, National Westminster Bank, Lothbury Officer

  Doreen Simmons

  Chairman, Farnham Voluntary Services and Community Association; Former Teacher

  Winchester School of Art

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Edward Chamberlain

  Design Centre Manager, IBM Hursley Park

  Francis Graham-Dixon

  Director, Francis Graham-Dixon Gallery

  Francoise Jollant

  Design Director, Louis Vuitton, Paris

  John Miles

  General Manager, Next Interiors

  Peter B. Moody

  Joint Managing Director, Generics Holdings Ltd. (Scientific and business consultancy)

  Dr. Marcia Pointon

  Reader in History of Art, University of Sussex

  William Pye

  Sculptor

  Kingsley Williams

  Solicitor; Chairman of Council and Pro Chancellor, Southampton University.

  Wolverhampton Polytechnic

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  John Gatenby

  Deputy Regional Director, National Westminster Bank plc

  Dr. Michael Harrison

  District General Manager, Sandwell Health Authority

  Miss Susan Massey

  Solicitor

  Glynne Morris

  Managing Director, Marston Palmer Ltd. (Engineering)

  Ms. Sonia Peters

  Health Visitor and Field Work Teacher, Wolverhampton Health Authority

  John Rice

  Chief Executive, Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  John Sayers

  Managing Director, InterTAN (UK) Ltd. (Tandy Ltd.) Walsall

  Anthony Smith

  Group Financial Director, Wagon Industrial Holdings plc

  Neville A. Soper

  Former Executive Director, Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  Michael J. Tandy

  Partner, Arther Young, Chartered Accountants, Telford

  John H. Young

  Technology Research Manager, Synthetic Chemicals Ltd.

  Note: West Midlands College of Higher Education merged with Wolverhampton Polytechnic on 1 April 1989.

  Worcester College of Higher Education

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Christopher J. Blackman

  Managing Director, Deansway Catering Company Ltd.

  Mrs. Margaret H. Buchan

  Administration Manager, National Westminster Bank plc (Malvern)

  Eric W. Dickinson

  Joint Registrar of the County Courts

  Raymond T. George

  Former Managing Director, Royal Worcester Spode (Worcester Porcelain)

  628

  Independent Members

  Affiliation

  Mrs Pamela C. Hawkeswood

  Company Accountant, Cosworth Engineering

  Lowry D. Maclean

  Chairman & Chief Executive, Tomkinsons plc

  Dr. Brian McCloskey

  Acting District Medical Officer, Worcester & District Health Authority

  Albert Morris

  Company Director, Old Worcestershire Furniture Company Ltd.

  Richard H. C. Pugh

  Director, Great Universal Stores, Kay & Company Ltd.

  Major Peter L. Tapply

  Chairman, Tapply Management Consultants

  Wilfred R. Tomlinson

  Director, Worcester Group plc

  Gordon Trueman

  Director, Hereford & Worcester Chamber of Commerce & Industry

  Ms. Mary Vaughan

  Manager, Sapphire Training Worcester

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Growth Rates
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing for each of the past 15 years United Kingdom growth rates, the growth rate of each of the United Kingdom's partners in the European Commission, and world growth rates, respectively.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for United Kingdom GDP can be found in the United Kingdom National Accounts Blue Book and in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. For EC countries growth rates for the years 1974 to 1987 can be found in the latest OECD Economic Outlook. Provisional figures for 1988 are given in OECD Main Economic Indicators, published monthly. Figures for world growth are given in the International Financial Statistics Yearbook and in the latest World Economic Outlook, both published by the IMF. All these publications can be obtained from the Library of the House.

  EC Goods (Fast Lane Clearance)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made on the introduction of a fast lane clearance system for European Economic Community goods.

  Mr. Lilley
  Customs and Excise is developing two fast lane schemes as interim measures to speed up the clearance of freight in the period leading to completion of the single market. They depend on the use of computer systems to facilitate rapid clearance and to simplify requirements for most kinds of goods imported from the Community.

  The first scheme is planned to start nationally on 1 August 1989, from which date the Customs computer will be able to grant immediate clearance to the majority of Community goods upon arrival. The necessary paper documentation will be processed after clearance of the goods. The fast lane facility will not, however, remove the need for essential preventive checks in the case of drugs and other prohibited or restricted goods.

  The second scheme will also allow immediate clearance for the same kinds of goods but the detailed information will be provided by importers later in the form of schedules transmitted to Customs electronically. This system will

  629
  make use of recent developments in technology and will be used this winter on a trial basis before becoming generally available next year.

  In consultation with the trading community Customs and Excise is also reviewing export procedures to see whether there is further scope for simplification in order to speed exports to other member states in the Community.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of premium savings bond sales in January were in denominations of less than £100.

  Mr. Lilley
  The number of premium bonds sold in January 1989 in denominations of less than £100 was 172,000. These bonds accounted for only about 12 per cent. of the total value.

  Government Actuary
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to change the 1989–90 cash limit and running costs limit for the Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Lilley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the cash limit for class XIX, vote 4 will be increased by £25,000 from £548,000 to £573,000, and the running costs limit by £178,000 from £2,510,000 to £2,688,000, to provide for recently implemented pay increases for actuarial staff, and the completion of the conversion of a major pension programme to in-house microcomputers. The increase in the cash limit will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Close Investment-Holding Companies
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the provisions in the Finance Bill concerning close investment-holding companies.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have received a number of representations.

  The purpose of the provisions concerning close investment-holding companies is to enable the highly complex and lengthy legislation about close company apportionment to be abolished while preventing the avoidance of tax on investment income and capital gains by an individual placing personal investments in a closely controlled investment company. There is general agreement on these objectives.

  The approach of the provisions in the Finance Bill is to tax CICs like individuals, so far as possible. However, although there have been some misunderstandings of the effect of the provisions, we are persuaded that this approach has its own difficulties and could place some close companies at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with non-close competitors. This was not the intention. We therefore propose to bring forward amendments.

  We have no doubt that the right approach remains to abolish apportionment and replace it by an appropriate tax charge on the company. We now propose that CICs will continue to be taxed like other companies, with the normal reliefs for interest and expenses. But, whatever the
  630
  level of their profits, they will no longer receive the benefit of the small companies rate and so will be taxed at 35 per cent. This approach will result in rules that are simpler than both the old apportionment provisions and the provisions in the Bill. And it will protect the Exchequer since under existing law there is a further tax charge if an investor withdraws accumulated profits from a company or sells his or her shares.

  We also propose to amend the definition of a CIC. No trading company (including a dealing company) will be a CIC. The existing apportionment provisions recognise that property investment companies may need to retain income for the purposes of the business and in practice these companies are little affected by apportionment—so these too will not be CICs. These changes will give a more simpler regime for taxing CICs, while guarding against tax avoidance.

  An Inland Revenue press release is being issued today giving further details of the proposals. The necessary amendments for the Committee stage of the Finance 13i11 will be put down as soon as possible.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the financial provision will be in 1989–90 for the enlarged Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Lawson
  A new Estimate (class XIX, vote 18) will be presented to Parliament, in the summer Supplementary Estimate round, to provide for expenditure by the new department from 31 July 1989. The provision sought will be offset by corresponding reductions shown in Revised Estimates for the Cabinet Office (class XX, vote 2), of £2,764,000, the Department of Trade and Industry (class V, vote 3), of £8,533,000, and the Department of Employment (class VII, vote 2), of £2,430,000 (which is part of the overall reduction on that vote), which will be presented to Parliament on the same day. It will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The cash limit for the new Central Statistical Office vote is £13,727,000 and the running costs limit is £10,804,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Community
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which presidencies the enlargements of the European Community were legally concluded.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The treaty of accession of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland was signed in January 1972 during the Luxembourg presidency, and entered into force on 1 January 1973. The treaty of accession of Greece was signed in May 1979 during the French presidency, and entered into force on 1 January 1981. The treaty of accession of Spain and Portugal was signed in June 1985 during the Italian presidency and entered into force on 1 January 1986.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which member states in their capacity as president have represented the European Community at ministerial level meetings in the general agreement on tariffs and trade, Uruguay round.
  631
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom spoke as the President of the Council at the meeting in Punta del Este in 1986, Greece at the meeting in Montreal in 1988. The European Commission negotiated on behalf of the Community and its member states.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many shipments and what weight of ivory have been seized by the Hong Kong authorities to date in the current year; and how many shipments and what weight of ivory have been imported from CITES approved sources in the same period.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Hong Kong Government have seized 15 consignments of illegal ivory so far this year, weighing a total of 0·5 tonnes. In the same period, 249 shipments of ivory, total weight 55·5 tonnes, have been imported from CITES approved sources.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to the establishment of a Pan-African animal task force to monitor and protect endangered species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are working to protect endangered species by strengthening the rules of organisations in this field. On 23 May we announced our support for a change in the rules of the convention on international trade in endangered species which would have the effect of banning trade in new ivory. We have not heard so far of a proposal for a Pan-African animal task force, but we are willing to consider new ideas.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has regarding the involvement of Renamo forces in the poaching of elephants in Mozambique; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has regarding the involvement of UNITA forces in the poaching of elephants in Angola; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representation he has made to the South African Government regarding their acceptance of ivory from UNITA forces in Angola in exchange for military and other assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There is extensive poaching of elephants for their ivory in Angola and Mozambique, as in other parts of Africa. We have no conclusive proof of the involvement of UNITA or Renamo in poaching. We utterly condemn poaching, whoever perpetrates it.

  The United Kingdom will be calling for concerted European support for a total ban of trade in new ivory at the next Council meeting of Environment Ministers on 8 June in Luxembourg.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to give consideration to applications from non-governmental organisations with a central interest in nuclear proliferation, for funds to support their attendance at the 1990 fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
  632
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The draft rules of procedure for the 1990 non-proliferation treaty review conference adopted at the 1st preparatory committee (held in New York from 1–5 May) will allow representatives of non-governmental organisations to attend plenary sessions and main committees of the review conference, and to receive the documents of the conference. However, it is not our policy to subsidise their attendance.

  Disarmament Initiatives
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what unilateral disarmament initiatives in nuclear, conventional, or chemical weapons, and in troop deployments have been made by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation since May 1979; and what response the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has made to these initiatives.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Soviet Union and its Warsaw pact allies have, since 7 December 1988, announced unilateral conventional force reductions which, if implemented, would reduce their conventional superiority over NATO in tanks and artillery from 3:1 to 2·4:1 and in aircraft from 2·1:1 to 1·8:1. Details are set out on page 226 of the first report of 1989 of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. These reductions do not call for any unilateral NATO response: a sizeable conventional imbalance would remain after their implementation. But NATO has made proposals at the conventional arms control talks in Vienna for more far-reaching reductions leading to an outcome of parity between the two sides in key items of equipment.

  The Soviet Union has stated that its conventional reductions in Europe will involve the withdrawal of 24 out of its 1,608 short-range nuclear-capable missile launchers. On 11 May it also announced the withdrawal from the countries of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union (but not the elimination) of 500 Soviet theatre nuclear warheads. NATO has 88 short-range nuclear missile launchers. It has reduced its stockpile of nuclear warheads in Europe from 7,000 in 1979 to 4,600 now. The Soviet Union announced a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing on 29 July 1985. This ended on 26 February 1987, when a Soviet nuclear device was exploded.

  The Soviet Union has claimed that it ceased chemical weapons production in 1987 but we doubt this. The Soviet Union has stated that it intends to begin destruction of its existing chemical weapon stocks in 1989, but has yet to give details of the quantities and time scale.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of Council of Ministers meetings since 1979, and indicate at which the Scottish Office was present in a Civil Service capacity in support of a United Kingdom Minister.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There were 652 meetings of the Council of Ministers from 1980 until the end of 1988.

  The United Kingdom delegation to all meetings of the Council of Ministers represents the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole.

ENERGY

  Generating Turbines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many privately operated electricity generating turbines are installed on rivers in England and Wales; if he will list them by location; and which Government Department has responsibility for permitting and overseeing their operations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The number of privately operated electricity generating turbines installed on rivers in England and Wales is not known to the Government.

  The National Association of Water Power Users has a membership of some 250. The association states that about half its members operate power generating turbines.

  The appropriate local water authority has responsibility for permitting and overseeing the operation of water turbine users. To remain within the existing law, each user has to obtain a water abstraction licence from the relevant local water authority.

  My Department has commissioned a study by Salford university of all potentially feasible and operating small-scale hydro energy sites in the United Kingdom. The report of this study is expected to be published shortly.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much coal was imported into the United Kingdom for the latest year for which he has figures; what strategic planning he has forecast for the next five years by year; and if he will make a statement on what reviews have been carried out or are planned with respect to the importation of coal and closure of deep-mined pits in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In 1988, coal imports into the United Kingdom were 11·993 million tones1 7·390 million tonnes of which was coking coal. The Government do not make forecasts of coal imports. Decisions on the future of individual deep-mine pits are a matter for the British Coal Corporation.

  1 Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. This is a provisional rounded figure, which may be subject to marginal adjustments, but is expected to be confirmed later this year.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total cash provision to date in electricity industry accounts for the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The 1987–88 Central Electricity Generating Board accounts include provisions of £568 million for the decommissioning costs of the board's nuclear power stations.

  Electricity Connections
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has obtained any further information from the Electricity Council regarding the number of households not connected to the electricity grid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the industry and I have asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to initiate negotiations with the European Commission, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency towards the deletion of article 14 of the tripartite safeguards agreement of August 1978 permitting the withdrawal of nuclear materials from safeguards for reasons of national security.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a table in the Official Report giving the amounts of carbon dioxide released in the production of (a) coal for fossil fuel fired power plants and (b) nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants in the present United Kingdom generating plant stock.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 20 February 1989, at column 470.

  Civil Nuclear Fuel Cycle
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out those areas of information in regard to the civil nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium import, processing, fuel manufacture, fuel load, reactor operation, fuel unload, spent fuel store at reactor, spent fuel transport to Sellafield, and reprocessing and store of plutonium, uranium and radioactive waste products by British Nuclear Fuels plc about which it is his policy for reasons of commercial confidentiality or national security not to publish full details in the Official Report.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information supplied on all these matters has to be restricted to some degree for reasons of commercial confidentiality or national security.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limit or running costs limit for 1989–90.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 3 will be increased by £2,290,000 from £35,599,000 to £37,889,000. This extra provision is sought to meet an increase of £2,190,000 in the cost of the Piper Alpha technical investigation and public inquiry. It will also include £100,000 to cover the cost of setting up the Office of Electricity Regulation prior to the appointment of the Director General of Electricity Supply as head of the Office of Electricity Regulation, expected to take effect from 1 September 1989. This latter amount will increase the Department of Energy's running costs limit from £38,022,000 to £38,122,000. It will be offset by a corresponding decrease from £30,000,000 to £29,900,000 in the cash limit for class VI, vote 6, where this provision was originally included.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 7, which is a new vote providing for expenditure by the Office of Electricity Regulation, will be £7,796,000, of which £6,320,000 will he the running costs limit.
  635
  Expenditure on vote 7 and the appointment of the Director General of Electricity Supply are both subject to the passage of the Electricity Bill currently before Parliament.

  These increases will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Coroners' Officers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether any studies have been undertaken into coroners employing their own officers;

  (2) why coroners' officers have to be employed by a police force.

  Mr. Hurd
  Home Office circular 93 of 1985 drew attention of county councils to a review of the work and methods of coroners' officers carried out by the Home Office organisation and methods branch and recommended that in consultation with coroners and chief officers of police they should review their own arrangements for the provision of coroners' officers. A copy of the circular and of the review are in the Library. The review had studied inter alia areas where, at that time, civilianisation had taken place. There is no requirement that civilian coroners' officers must be employed by a police authority, although that is the option we prefer.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 6 March,Official Report, column 383, how information technologies involving the provision of information to the public is being used to combat crime; if he has any further plans to apply the newest technologies in this field; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The police service applies information technology extensively in the fight against crime. Many of these applications involve providing information to the public. For example, as part of the process of detecting crime, information technology is used to assist the public to identify suspects and to build up a photographic image of a suspect from witnesses' descriptions.

  More generally, work is well advanced in the implementation of a new police national computer system, incorporating the latest software and hardware technology, which will come into operation by the end of 1990. This is the first step in a programme of development of police national information services which the Department is drawing up in collaboration with the Association of Chief Police Officers and which is aimed at applying information technology to police operational needs.

  Firearms
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in discussions on the draft directive on the mutual recognition of firearms certificates; whether the proposals fall to be considered by majority vote or by unanimity; and if he will make a statement.
  636
  Mr. Hurd
  No discussions have been held by the European Commission since last June on its proposal for a Council directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. The Commission has based this proposal on article 100A, which would enable its adoption by majority voting. The United Kingdom has registered the view that the directive should be founded, like other frontier measures, on article 235, which requires unanimity. We have entered a formal reserve about the legal basis and will continue to press the Commission to accept our view.

  We understand that the Commission intends to issue shortly a revised version of the draft directive. When this has been received we will consider it carefully.

  Malcolm Booth (Car Keys)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communications it has received from Malcolm Booth, alias Ian Ross, who originally traded as M. B. Locksmiths and is now trading as Westway Locksmiths, about the keys he claims will open 95 per cent. of British and foreign cars; what discussions his Department has had with Tameside trading standards departments about these keys; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I understand that Mr. Booth has recently been committed for trial on a number of charges. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to comment further.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates making a decision on the applications for transfer to a gaol in Northern Ireland from prisoners(a) 851715, John McComb, (b) 463799, Ronald McCartney, (c) 119034, Paul Holmes and (d) 3369204, Thomas Quigley.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am aware of no recent applications for transfer from Mr. McComb or Mr. Quigley. The applications by the other two inmates named will be answered as soon as possible.

  Passports
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average length of time taken to issue a full passport from the time of application at each of the main issuing offices; and what was the average time taken in 1979, 1983 and in the last five years.

  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 times for straightforward non-urgent postal applications at the six United Kingdom passport offices are shown in the table, together with those of the corresponding periods of the last four years. I regret that information for earlier years is not available.
  637

  Passport office

  Time between receipt of application and issue of passport

  21 May 1989

  22 May 1988

  22 May 1987

  23 April 1986

  24 May1985

  London

  25

  55

  62

  24

  10

  Liverpool

  68

  15

  22

  15

  6

  Peterborough

  38

  32

  19

  14

  11·5

  Newport

  45

  20

  44

  25

  12

  Glasgow

  50

  33

  33

  30

  10

  Belfast

  4

  4

  7

  5

  4

  Most applications are processed well within these maximum periods.

  A sharp increase in demand early this year has led to a general increase in processing times. Staff at Glasgow and Liverpool are having to adapt to a new computerised system of passport issuing, and accommodation changes at other offices have also affected output. Additional staff have been employed to help deal with the backlog, and a system of free two-year extensions to the life of expired passports submitted for replacement has been introduced at Liverpool to help relieve the immediate problem there.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state for the Liverpool passport office the average length of time it takes to process a correctly completed passport application form for the most recent convenient period for which figures are available, and the comparable figure for the previous year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  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. Straightforward non-urgent postal applications are at present being processed at the Liverpool passport office within a maximum 63 working days, compared with 18 last year. Most applications are processed well within this period.

  A sharp increase in demand early this year has increased processing times at Liverpool, where staff are also having to adapt to a new computerised system of passport issuing. Additional staff have been employed to help deal with the backlog, and, as I announced to the House on 11 May, at column 978, a system of free two-year extensions to the life of expired passports is being introduced to help relieve the immediate problem.

  Foxes and Deer
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement summarising the proposals made by the European Parliament for the control and restriction of the hunting of foxes and deer; and whether the EEC Commission has plans to present proposals on the implementation of these proposals.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am not aware of any such proposals.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet able to announce the name of the chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am pleased to announce that Lord Kimball, former chairman of the British Fields Sports 638
  Society, has been appointed chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee. The names of the other members of the committee will be announced shortly.

  Hull Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners from the Doncaster area were being held at Her Majesty's prison, Hull, on the latest date for which he has figures; if he will show in his answer the ages of these inmates; and if he will list the figures for one year; five years and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Hurd
  On 19 May there were in Hull prison 28 unsentenced prisoners whose home addresses were recorded as in Doncaster. The table shows their ages at the time of reception into custody.

  Age

  Number of prisoners

  17

  4

  18

  3

  19

  2

  20

  2

  21

  3

  22

  2

  23

  2

  24

  1

  25

  1

  26

  1

  27

  2

  28

  1

  29

  1

  30

  1

  31

  1

  44

  1

  TOTAL

  28

  Comparable figures for one year ago are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Comparable figures for five and 10 years ago do not exist, as unsentenced prisoners were not held at Hull prior to February 1986.

  Immigration
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors to the United Kingdom in the last five years have been refused entry because of(a) homosexuality and/or (b) being HIV seropositive.

  Mr. Renton
  These are not of themselves grounds for refusal of entry.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been given to immigration officials to question visitors to the United Kingdom about the sexual orientation or their HIV antibody status.

  Mr. Renton
  None.
  639
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that immigration officials do not discriminate against(a) homosexual visitors and (b) HIV seropositive visitors to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  Immigration officers are aware of the need to apply the normal requirements of the immigration rules to all visitors.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he intends to introduce a Criminal Justice Bill.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government keep the operation of the criminal justice system under regular review, and will bring forward proposals for legislative changes where these appear necessary, and when parliamentary time permits.

  Hillsborough Inquiry
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his present estimate of the cost of the 640
  Hillsborough inquiry which will be borne by the police authority of South Yorkshire; and what is his estimate of the amount per head which this will involve.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is not clear at this stage what the total additional costs of the Hillsborough police inquiry will be. South Yorkshire police authority has made representations which my noble Friend Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State, will be discussing with the authority shortly.

  Homosexuality
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to implement the Law Commission proposal to lower the age of consent for buggery between men.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 23 May 1989]: Yes.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the draft criminal code Bill published by the Law Commission, he has any plans to introduce legislation on the age of consent for homosexual acts between males; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 23 May 1989]: No.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tropical Rain Forests
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects that are currently being undertaken to reduce the destruction of the tropical rain forests.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Fricnd the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 15 May, at column 21.

  Africa
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent in aid payments to countries in the African subcontinent, in total, in the last five years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Over the last five years for which firm figures are available—1983 to 1987—gross bilateral aid to Africa totalled £1·39 billion. Including the estimated United Kingdom share of multilateral aid this figure rises to some £2·5 billion.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any requests for assistance have been received from countries attempting to safeguard elephant populations.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There have been no recent requests for such assistance; but we are already actively assisting the Government of Kenya and stand ready to discuss further support for wild life conservation, including the safeguarding of elephant populations, with the Governments concerned.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is now being given to African countries to combat the poaching of elephants; and what is his latest information about current levels of the elephant population in Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In Kenya we are currently funding a wildlife adviser and two game wardens in the wildlife department as part of our technical co-operation programme with the Government of Kenya. Nineteen lorries for use in anti-poaching activities have also been provided. The possibility of further assistance with the rehabilitation of vehicles, equipment and training for conservation activities is under discussion.

  We are also providing assistance for wildlife conservation under the joint funding scheme with British voluntary agencies in Cameroon, Liberia, Zambia and Nepal; and we are contributing El million to the World Wide Fund for Nature to assist the fund in activities to conserve natural resources including wild life.

  There are no reliable figures for the current elephant population in Africa. In 1979 the estimated total population was 1·3 million. In the last decade this is thought to have fallen to 750,000 or fewer. According to some estimates the figure lies between 300,000 and 400,000.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 642
  official bodies and organisations outside the United Kingdom that make grants to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations engaged in overseas development; and what was the amount of grant given to each United Kingdom non-governmental organisation by such bodies in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  This information is not available.

  Lomé IV
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on the negotiations for Lomé IV.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Work on the renegotiation of Lomé IV has continued at official level since the first ACP/EC ministerial negotiating meeting in February. I expect to attend the second ACP/EC ministerial negotiating meeting in Brussels in early June, where I hope further progress will be made.

  Bophuthatswana
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to offer any assistance by way of education or technical training to Bophuthatswana; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In common with every country except South Africa we do not recognise the "independence" of Bophuthatswana. Our training and scholarships programmes are available to individual applicants from Bophuthatswana as from elsewhere in South Africa.

WALES

  Brussels
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times(a) in the last 12 months and (b) since June 1987 he has visited Brussels; and what were his discussions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I visited Brussels in February 1988 and met Commissioner Varfis to discuss proposals for integrated development operations in Wales.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit Brussels on behalf of the Welsh agriculture industry during this Session of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am ready to go to the Council of Agriculture Ministers should the need arise.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the agriculture industry in Wales about the future of research and development in agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has had discussions with various sectors of the farming industry, including the farming unions, about the
  643
  Government's proposals to withdraw public funding from near market research and development. My officials have also had contacts with the farming unions.

  Inspectors of Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of Her Majesty's inspectors practice in Wales; and how many work in each of the sectors of the education service in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are currently 56 of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools in Wales. Each Inspector usually operates in a number of the education sectors—primary, secondary, further and higher education—and is not confined to any one.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to increase the number of Her Majesty's inspectors in Wales to cope with the operation of the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of inspectors in Wales is kept under review in the light of the demands of the work needing to be done.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales await kidney transplants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the number of Welsh patients awaiting kidney transplantation at hospitals in England and Wales is not available centrally. However, it is understood that 81 patients are awaiting kidney transplantation at the Welsh regional centre at Cardiff royal infirmary. Consideration will be given to further ways of improving the supply of organs to increase the number of kidney transplants performed each year at the Cardiff centre once the Asscher report on renal services in Wales has been studied in detail and the outcome is known of the Medical Reseach Council funded study of factors determining the supply of cadaver organs for transplantation which is being conducted in Wales.

  Welsh Language Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified teachers of the Welsh language are employed in each of the counties of Wales in both primary and secondary sectors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, I am able to provide the following:

  Qualifications in Welsh held by teachers in primary schools1

  Qualifications in Welsh held by teachers in secondary schools2

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Clwyd

  484

  681

  220

  Dyfed

  605

  922

  258

  Gwent

  39

  75

  34

  Gwynedd

  626

  899

  331

  Mid Glamorgan

  N/A

  N/A

  246

  644

  Qualifications in Welsh held by teachers in primary schools1

  Qualifications in Welsh held by teachers in secondary schools2

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Powys

  104

  174

  60

  South Glamorgan

  138

  241

  113

  West Glamorgan

  342

  484

  170

  1 As at spring term, 1987.

  2 As at spring term, 1984.

  Column (a) Number of post A-level qualifications held by teachers with Welsh as the main or subsidiary subject of study.

  Column (b) Teachers who had studied Welsh as a first or second language as a subject in training.

  Column (c) Any post A-level qualifications held by teachers with Welsh as the main or subsidiary subject of study.

  We are currently estimating the number of teachers required to meet the needs of Welsh within the national curriculum.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take special measures to increase the number of teachers of the Welsh language in the local education authorities of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Arrangements are already being put in place to facilitate the retraining of teachers to teach Welsh as a second language. Officials are estimating what numbers of teachers of Welsh will be needed and will be consulting with local education authorities.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students there were in higher education in Wales in the last year for which figures are available and in each of the establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is given in the following tables:

  Number of students enrolled on higher education courses in Welsh public sector institutions in 1987–88

  Number

  Clwyd

  North East Wales Institute of Higher Education

  2,385

  Llandtillo Technical College

  142

  Dyfed

  Carmarthenshire College of Technology and Art

  326

  Pembrokeshire College of Further Education

  36

  Ceredigion College of further Education

  13

  College of Librarianship

  410

  Welsh Agricultural College

  81

  Trinity College

  600

  Gwent

  Newport College of Further Education

  108

  Gwent College of Higher Education

  3,210

  Cross Keys Tertiary College

  8

  Ebbw Vale College of Further Education

  51

  Gwynedd

  Gwynedd Technical College

  167

  Normal College of Higher Education

  551

  Mid Glamorgan

  Bridgend College of Technology

  134

  645

  Number

  Pontypridd Technical College

  38

  Polytechnic of Wales

  5,761

  South Glamorgan

  Welsh College of Music and Drama

  305

  South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  3,387

  West Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  2,431

  Neath College

  57

  Afan College

  6

  TOTAL, WALES PSHE

  20,207

  Number of students enrolled on higher education courses in the university of Wales in 1987–88

  Number

  University College, Aberystwyth

  3,492

  University College of North Wales, Bangor

  3,199

  University College, Cardiff

  6,356

  University College, Swansea

  5,082

  University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology

  3,016

  St. David's University College, Lempeter

  769

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  972

  TOTAL, WALES

  22,886

  The total number of students in higher education in Wales has increased by 28 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1987–88. The increase in the university sector has been 10 per cent. an in the public sector 56 per cent. in that period.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to meet Alyn and Deeside council to discuss its objections to caravan sites under the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate how many protests he has received from residents in(a) Clwyd and (b) Deeside concerning likely caravan sites; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of caravan sites for which he has made orders under section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 since 1980 in Wales; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Grist
  One district in Wales—Arfon—has been designated under section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to indicate which caravan sites will be designated in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  Under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 it is the duty of county councils in Wales to provide adequate accommodation for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area. Identification of suitable sites in Clwyd is a matter for the county council in consultation with the relevant district councils.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Connah's Quay town council,646
  Shotton county council, Sealand county council, Queensferry county council, Saltney council, Hawarden county council, Kinnerton county council and Penyffordd county council to discuss their concern regarding the potential implementation of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Church-aided Schools (Capital Projects)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to review his Department's policy in respect of funding of capital projects for Church-aided schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. Voluntary-aided schools remain an important part of total education provision and it remains the Government's policy to grant-aid necessary capital projects at such schools. Resources are targeted to those projects where needs are greatest.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate which community health councils in Wales will merge on the proposed reorganisation of the National Health Service in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The proposal contained in the White Paper is for the establishment of one community health council in each district health authority area in Wales. However, no decisions have yet been taken and a consultation document on the matter will be published in the summer.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in Wales which(a) he has earmarked for, (b) he has received representations for or (c) fulfil his criteria for self-governing status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Welsh Office officials are engaged in discussions with health authorities officers about the concept of self-governing hospitals. No hospitals have been identified as candidates for self-governing status at this stage.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he proposes to meet the chairmen of family practitioner committees in Wales to discuss the White Paper "Working for Patients";

  (2) when he last met family practitioner committees in Wales to discuss health matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend met chairmen of family practitioner committees on 15 May to discuss the White Paper "Working for Patients". I meet chairmen from time to time to talk about a range of health matters. The last such meeting was on 11 December 1987.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the implications of the new general practitioners' contracts for rural practices in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  During discussion with representatives of GPs on 4 May a number of modifications to the new GP
  647
  contract were agreed which are of special relevance to rural practices for example the 26-hour rule, payment for minor surgery and the criteria for payment of basic practice allowance. Furthermore, it was agreed that the operation of the rural practice payment scheme should be referred for review to the central advisory committee on that scheme. This agreement makes clear that Health Ministers have taken account of the concerns expressed by the profession not least in respect of rural areas, and implementation of the contract as proposed will be an important step towards achieving our objectives of raising even higher the standard of the family doctor service and the care patients can expect to receive.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, in the light of the written representations he has received concerning the National Health Service reform proposals from Alyn and Deeside, he will undertake to meet both the Clwyd area health authority and the Clwyd family practitioner committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I met the chairmen of both Clwyd DHA and FPC in the company of their DHA and FPC chairmen colleagues on 15 May to discuss the NHS review White Paper.

  "New Roads by New Means"
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for Wales of the consultation paper "New Roads by New Means".

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The consultation paper has been widely circulated in Wales and I await the comments of interested parties, including the Welsh counties and the local authority associations. An assessment of the implications for Wales of the proposals in the Green Paper will depend on the responses from consultees, including the private sector.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of how safely health authorities in Wales handle and dispose of clinical waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  District health authorities in Wales are responsible for the safe handling and disposal of their clinical waste. The criteria for good operational practice were laid down in "The Safe disposal of Clinical Waste" (Health and Safety Commission: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1982) which was circulated to health authorities in Wales in 1982. A further circular is shortly to be issued reminding authorities of the criteria and seeking confirmation that the guidance is being followed. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is not aware of any incidents involving improper disposal in Wales in the last year.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of nursery school places per 1,000 children in each of the counties of Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  648
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of children in each county in nursery school or in a nursery class in a primary school per 1,000 of 3 and 4-year-olds is as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  416

  Dyfed

  261

  Gwent

  344

  Gwynedd

  235

  Mid Glamorgan

  446

  Powys

  280

  South Glamorgan

  302

  West Glamorgan

  566

  Wales

  372

  As at January 1988.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what measures he will take to increase the number of nursery school places in the local education authorities of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is for individual local education authorities to decide whether they wish to increase the numbers of nursery school places, in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Welsh Water Authority plc
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make a statement about the capital structure of WWA plc.

  Mr. Grist
  Decisions on the capital structure of the successor company will be taken nearer to the date of flotation.

  Roads (Expenditure)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funding is to be made available for roads in Wales in the 1990s in addition to that announced in Roads in Wales, published earlier in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The funding provision up to March 1992 for the programme described in "Roads in Wales 1989" is set out in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 617) and in the accompanying Welsh Office commentary. Public expenditure provision is reviewed annually.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dairy herds in Clwyd are subject to the use of bovine somatotropin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Bovine somatotropin is currently under test in a limited number of field trials. Section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 prohibits the disclosure of information supplied by applicants for product licences and test certificates. It is therefore not possible to divulge the number or the location of the herds involved in the trials.

  Midwives
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many midwives there are in Wales; how many claims for regrading he has received; and if he will make a statement.
  649
  Mr. Grist
  As at 31 March 1989 it is estimated there were 1,368 qualified midwives of all grades in post. Some 1,345 of these posts were regraded under the new clinical grading structure and I have received 10 representations from or on behalf of midwives about the grades they were allocated.

  Under the NHS Whitley procedures appeals against gradings are a matter for the health authorities.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve breast cancer screening in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Breast screening is currently being introduced into the NHS in Wales with the objective of covering the whole of the Principality by 1990. This timetable, which is the same as that for England, is the fastest at which this entirely new service can realistically be implemented in a safe and effective way. A total of £1·8 million has been made available for the service in the current financial year.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to improve cervical cancer screening in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Cervical screening is the responsibility of district health authorities. In order further to improve the service a recurring sum of £600,000 has been made available in Wales this financial year in addition to the £800,000 a year which has been allocated to health authorities in previous years.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide as much information as possible about his Department's expenditure on commercial television advertising, without breaching commercial confidentiality, over each of the past five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: The total expenditure on advertising and publicity, including TV advertising in the last five years, is set out in the table:

  £

  1984–85

  434,889

  1985–86

  617,914

  1986–87

  804,638

  1987–88

  820,226

  1988–89

  1,145,033

  TOTAL

  3,822,700

  Broadleaved Woodland
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total area of land in Northern Ireland entered into the broadleaved woodland grant scheme between 1985 and 1988; and what is the area approved for each of the following operations:(a) thinning, (b) selective felling, (c) clear felling, (d) natural regeneration under 20 years of age, (e) neglected woodland under 20 years of age, (f) restocking by replanting, (g) restocking by natural regeneration and (h) new planting.
  650
  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 23 May 1989]: The total area of land in Northern Ireland approved under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme between 1985 and 1988 was 181·30 hectares.

  The areas approved for each of the categories is as follows:

  Area

  1. Thinning

  Nil

  2. Selective felling

  Nil

  3. Clear felling

  Nil

  4. Natural regeneration under 20 years

  Nil

  5. Neglected woodland under 20 years

  1·3 hectares

  6. Restocking by replanting

  Nil

  7. Restocking by natural regeneration

  4·2 hectares

  8. New planting

  175·8 hectares

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electromagnetic Compatibility
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the implications of the European Community directive on electromagnetic compatibility; and how he proposes to draw the attention of the United Kingdom electrical and electronics industry to them.

  Mr. Atkins
  As part of the Department's single market campaign, we have issued much material drawing industry's attention to the implications of the EMC and other "new approach" directives, and we have consulted companies and trade associations regularly on the negotiations. Now that the directive has been agreed, we shall issue shortly a booklet on its terms, and later this year a consultative document on its implementation.

  Industry must prepare itself for the implementation of the directive, and we are planning a major awareness campaign to ensure that companies are aware of the opportunities, as well as the technical requirements. We have already commissioned a study by W. S. Atkins (Management Consultants) on the availability of accredited test facilities, and the results show a considerable shortfall in the capacity which will be needed. The awareness campaign will address this problem.

  Director General of Telecommunications (Report)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his Department has yet received a report by the Director General of Telecommunications for the year 1988, as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes. The fifth report by the Director General of Telecommunications was published on 23 May. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 1988. Copies of the report have been laid before each House of Parliament.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limit and running cost limits for 1989–90.

  Mr. Newton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimates, the case limit for class V vote
  651
  2 (support for industry) will be reduced by £1,830,000 from £580,467,000 to £578,637,000, and the cash limit for class V vote 3 (administration, regulation of domestic trade and industry, and consumer protection) will be reduced by £8,533,000 from £251,763,000 to £243,230,000. The running cost provison for class V vote 3 will also be reduced by £7,930,000 from £185,620,000 to £177,690,000, giving a revised total running cost limit for the Department of £304,760,000.

  The decrease in the cash limit for class V vote 2 results from a reduction of £3,175,000 in grant in aid provision for the English Industrial Estates Corporation, reflecting reduced estimates of capital expenditure on the managed workspace programmes. Consequential changes have been made to tables 3 and 4 to reflect this. These tables also reflect matching reductions of £11 million in capital expenditure and receipts which have no effect on the level of grant in aid. The reduction in grant in aid is partially offset by an increase of £1,345,000 in provision to meet the initial United Kingdom contribution to the first account of the common fund. The fund will form part of the framework for international commodity policy agreed by the United Nations conference on trade and development. The necessary resources will be found from the agreed PES provision for overseas aid. Provision for inward investment promotional expenditure is being increased by £526,000, and provision for regional enterprise grants is being reduced by the same amount. The opportunity is also being taken to reallocate provision between the Department's research establishments.

  The decrease in the cash limit for class V vote 3 (and the running cost limit) reflects a transfer of provision for the Business Statistics Office and other statistical sections to class XIX vote 18 (Central Statistical Office), in line with the announcement by the Prime Minister on 5 April 1989 (at column 190–191 of the formation of an enlarged Central Statistical Office.

  These changes will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Post Office
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Post Office will publish the results from its new end-to-end monitoring system for letter delivery performance.

  Mr. Newton
  The Post Office, jointly with its users council POUNC, has today published the first results from its new independent end-to-end monitoring system based on the time taken from collection of letters to their actual delivery. Thus performance will now be measured in a way which reflects users' actual experience of the postal system.

  The Post Office has also announced, with the endorsement of POUNC, new targets for improving the performance revealed by the figures, and a number of other steps to improve its service, including improved transport arrangements and the provision of better information to households about the best time to post for particular destinations.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on imports into the United Kingdom of(a) worked and (b) raw ivory by weight and value in each year since 1979.
  652
  Mr. Alan Clark
  In 1988 imports of raw ivory were recorded as 12·1 metric tonnes valued at £470,000; information prior to 1988 is not available. Imports of worked ivory are given in the following table:

  United Kingdom imports of worked ivory

  Metric tonnes

  £'000s

  1979

  22·8

  382

  1980

  17·2

  487

  1981

  3·0

  238

  1982

  4·6

  263

  1983

  4·7

  311

  1984

  2·9

  455

  1985

  1·1

  267

  1986

  1·8

  252

  1987

  0·8

  241

  1988

  8·0

  208

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Note:—1988 figures provisional.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has about the import of(a) worked and (b) raw ivory into Hong Kong in each of the last five years by weight, value and country of origin.

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

  Hong Kong's imports of worked ivory1 2

  1984

  Country

  Weight kg

  Value HK$ 000

  China

  13,874

  21,875

  Japan

  586

  1,719

  Macau

  770

  989

  United States of America

  119

  365

  Thailand

  361

  282

  India

  111

  239

  United Kingdom

  100

  218

  Federal Republic of Germany

  38

  148

  Republic of Korea

  16

  122

  Italy

  35

  110

  Switzerland

  20

  76

  Singapore

  12

  71

  France

  12

  55

  Taiwan

  21

  42

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  22

  33

  Insular Spain

  10

  29

  United States Oceania

  19

  24

  United Arab Emirates

  10

  12

  Australia

  1

  3

  Total

  16,137

  26,413

  1985

  Country

  Weight kg

  Value HK$ 000

  China

  25,596

  27,094

  Japan

  6,831

  3,869

  Macau

  4,693

  5,190

  Singapore

  663

  977

  United States of America

  445

  1,305

  India

  122

  159

  France

  100

  199

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  61

  135

  Federal Republic of Germany

  49

  79

  Sri Lanka

  15

  39

  Netherlands

  11

  11

  New Zealand

  5

  15

  Canada

  3

  14

  Taiwan

  3

  7

  Total

  38,597

  39,094

  653

  1986

  Country

  Weight Kg.

  Value HK$ '000s

  China

  n/a

  26,646

  Macau

  n/a

  14,271

  Singapore

  n/a

  7,144

  Japan

  n/a

  4,492

  United States of America

  n/a

  1,071

  Qatar

  n/a

  247

  Italy

  n/a

  207

  India

  n/a

  82

  Thailand

  n/a

  80

  France

  n/a

  68

  Federal Republic of Germany

  n/a

  62

  South Africa

  n/a

  50

  Canada

  n/a

  38

  Sri Lanka

  n/a

  16

  Switzerland

  n/a

  12

  Total

  n/a

  54,486

  1987

  Country

  Weight Kg.

  HK$ '000s

  China

  n/a

  27,437

  Singapore

  n/a

  16,066

  Macau

  n/a

  10,708

  United Arab Emirates

  n/a

  3,582

  Taiwan

  n/a

  1,716

  United States of America

  n/a

  630

  Japan

  n/a

  573

  Sri Lanka

  n/a

  444

  Italy

  n/a

  141

  Thailand

  n/a

  89

  Denmark

  n/a

  84

  India

  n/a

  45

  France

  n/a

  26

  Federal Republic of Germany

  n/a

  3

  Total

  n/a

  61,544

  1988

  Country

  Weight Kg.

  Value HK$ '000s

  China

  n/a

  39,444

  United Arab Emirates

  n/a

  9,048

  Macau

  n/a

  6,413

  Singapore

  n/a

  1,896

  Japan

  n/a

  1,575

  United States of America

  n/a

  1,394

  South Africa

  n/a

  1,051

  Taiwan

  n/a

  600

  France

  n/a

  245

  Republic of Korea

  n/a

  239

  India

  n/a

  102

  Zaire Kinshasa

  n/a

  84

  Italy

  n/a

  o41

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  n/a

  18

  Switzerland

  n/a

  10

  Canada

  n/a

  7

  Total

  n/a

  62,165

  Source: Hong Kong Trade Statistics.

  1 The figures are based on country of consignment.

  2 Hong Kong imports and exports classifications: Item 899.111

  n/a-Not available.

  Hong Kong's imports of unworked ivory1 2

  1984

  Country

  Weight kg

  Value HK$000

  Japan

  293,275

  105,158

  Belgium

  44,887

  21,214

  South Africa

  22,001

  9,204

  654

  Country

  Weight kg.

  Value HK$000

  Federal Republic of Germany

  10,232

  4,958

  Tanzania

  2,445

  1,250

  Sudan

  2,141

  480

  United States of America

  2,081

  893

  United Kingdom

  1,946

  1,149

  China

  336

  69

  Total

  381,927

  144,907

  1985

  Country

  Weight kg

  Value HK$000

  Japan

  174,345

  78,282

  South Africa

  27,109

  12,992

  Sudan

  13,500

  2,085

  Belgium

  9,727

  5,208

  Switzerland

  6,080

  2,941

  China

  2,566

  1,579

  United States of America

  1,540

  859

  Tanzania

  1,070

  591

  France

  455

  227

  India

  255

  141

  Total

  235,318

  105,076

  1986

  Country

  Weight Kg

  Value HK$000

  Somali Democratic Republic

  61,486

  38,221

  Japan

  47,242

  20,220

  Sudan

  22,880

  3,569

  South Africa

  17,234

  9,900

  Belgium

  16,333

  10,574

  Zambia

  5,147

  3,172

  United Kingdom

  4,780

  2,720

  Central Africa Republic

  2,115

  1,848

  Taiwan

  1,103

  519

  Netherlands

  780

  462

  Botswana

  357

  237

  Tanzania

  213

  125

  Macau

  177

  147

  Austria

  151

  124

  Zimbabwe

  105

  54

  United States of America

  95

  51

  China

  45

  23

  France

  23

  12

  Total

  181,522

  92,790

  1987

  Country

  Weight Kg

  Value HK$ 000

  Belgium

  67,627

  43,082

  Japan

  57,061

  22,462

  Singapore

  53,068

  33,598

  Sudan

  13,382

  2,083

  South Africa

  11,638

  10,169

  Congo Peoples Republic

  11,114

  9,774

  Ethiopia

  4,550

  2,955

  Netherlands

  1,915

  2,324

  France

  1,549

  1,429

  United Kingdom

  1,058

  945

  Zimbabwe

  1,008

  1,400

  Macau

  696

  667

  Zambia

  471

  441

  Federal Republic of Germany

  233

  172

  Total

  225,370

  131,501

  655

  1988

  Country

  Weight kg

  Value HK$ 000

  Singapore

  112,767

  79,642

  Sudan

  52,090

  8,126

  Japan

  24,644

  15,323

  Belgium

  14,208

  12,453

  Mozambique

  13,616

  15,401

  Somali Democratic Republic

  12,663

  11,213

  Congo Peoples Republic

  11,667

  17,293

  Djibouti

  10,901

  14,539

  France

  5,211

  6,990

  South Africa

  3,358

  3,715

  Macau

  1,660

  978

  United Kingdom

  1,298

  355

  Zambia

  1,047

  2,042

  China

  703

  454

  United States of America

  618

  443

  Ivory Coast

  512

  553

  Ethiopia

  461

  304

  Uganda

  281

  110

  Federal Republic of Germany

  63

  58

  India

  31

  25

  Total

  271,669

  190,218

  1 The figures are based on country of consignment.

  2 Hong Kong Imports and Exports Classification: Items 291162, 291165 and 291166.

  Source: Hong Kong Trade Statistics.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to his reply of 27 April,Official Report, columns 614–15 concerning gross output of finished manufactures and imports of semi-manufactures, intermediate products and basic materials, whether he will provide comparable figures for manufactures less food, drink, tobacco, paper, printing and publishing; and if he will add figures for 1973 and for exports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The figures are estimated to be as follows:

  Estimated Gross Output (£ billion, 1985 prices)

  Finished manufactures

  Finished manufactures less food, drink, tobacco. Paper, Printing and Publishing

  1970

  129·5

  n/a

  1973

  145·8

  96·2

  1979

  144·5

  92·7

  1988

  156·6

  101·2

  n/a = not available.

  Manufactures (SITC 5–8) less paper and paperboard (1) and printed matter (2) (OTS basis)

  £ billion 1985 prices

  Exports

  Imports

  1970

  31·6

  17·2

  1973

  38·8

  26·6

  1979

  45·9

  39·9

  1988

  59·8

  75·4

  Notes:

  1. SITC 64

  2. SITC 892
  656

  £ billion 1985 prices

  Semi-Manufactures (SITC 5 + 6)

  Intermediate finished manufactures (part of SITC 7 + 8)

  Basic materials (SITC 2 + 4)

  Imports

  1973

  130

  4·7

  6·4

  Exports

  1970

  12·2

  7·6

  1·2

  1973

  15·4

  10·2

  1·4

  1979

  18·5

  116

  1·9

  1988

  23·8

  14·2

  2·2

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, further to his reply of 27 April,Official Report, columns 614–15, concerning gross output of finished manufactures and imports of semi-manufactures, intermediate products and basic materials, whether he will provide an estimate for the increase in the United Kingdom content of United Kingdom exports of finished manufactures between (i) 1970 and 1979 and (ii) 1979 and 1988 on the assumption that the United Kingdom content of exports was the same in each year as the United Kingdom content of United Kingdom output, leaving out of account food, drink and tobacco as well as paper, printing and publishing.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the Director General of Telecommunications to discuss premium rate telephone services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 23 May 1989]: Both my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I meet the Director General of Telecommunications from time to time to discuss a range of telecommunications issues. The last such meeting was in January when our discussion included premium rate telephone services.

  Air Transportation (Delays)
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will undertake consultations as to the costs to United Kingdom trade of delays in the handling of air transportation in the air over the United Kingdom and on the ground at major United Kingdom airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We keep in regular contact about these matters both with the Department of Transport and with representatives of the business community. As my hon. Friend will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is at present awaiting advice from the Civil Aviation Authority on the adequacy of United Kingdom airport and airspace capacity, through to 2005.

  Microchips
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what revisions are planned to the programme of
  657
  financial support for the development of gallium arsenide microchips following the withdrawal of the major United Kingdom industrial participation.

  Mr. Newton
  Earlier this year we initiated a review of the gallium arsenide advanced technology programme in the light of the slower development of the market for these devices than had been expected. I understand that the recently announced closure of the Plessey Three Five Group represents only a partial withdrawal from gallium arsenide microchip technology, and that the company will continue to manufacture gallium arsenide integrated circuits at its existing facilities situated in the Plessey research and technology complex at Caswell.

SCOTLAND

  Sand Eel Fishing
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the licensing of sand eel fishing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A number of representations have been received in response to the consultation paper issued by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland on 4 April 1989. These are currently being considered and an announcement about licensing arrangements for the fishery will be made shortly.

  Teachers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ascertain the numbers of teachers in Scotland who came from minority ethnic groups along the lines of similar surveys being carried out in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no plans to conduct similar surveys in Scotland.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of teachers who qualify in Scotland do not go into teaching the following year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A survey conducted by colleges of education in March 1988 indicates that over 20 per cent. of teachers who qualified in June 1987 had not entered teaching by that date. Results from a March 1989 survey are not yet available.

  Torness Power Station
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the costs to his Department of official participation in the opening of Torness power station on 13 May, including security.

  Mr. Lang
  The total cost to the Scottish Office of official participation in the opening of Torness power station on 13 May was £358. There was no cost to the Scottish Office in respect of security which was provided by Lothian and Borders police, as part of their normal responsibilities, and by the South of Scotland Electricity Board for security within the station.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the cost to the South of Scotland Electricity Board of the opening ceremony for Torness power station.
  658
  Mr. Lang
  This is a matter for the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  School Records
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to make regulations providing parents and older pupils with a right of access to school records, and students with a right of access to further education records.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We are currently examining the points raised in consultation and will make regulations as soon as possible.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the Scottish Office civil servants who have advised or assisted the European Commission in its formulation of policy initiatives towards the internal market in the particular areas of(a) public procurement, (b) excluded sectors proposals, (c) compliance directives, and (d) the mutual recognition of professional qualifications;

  (2) if he will list the Scottish Office civil servants by grade and rank who have provided the European Commission with technical or other advice on the following major framework directives: (a) pressure vessels, (b) toys, (c) construction materials, (d) electromagnetic compatibility, (e) machine safety, and (f) food law;

  (3) if he will list the Scottish Office civil servants by grade and rank who have advised the European Commission on (a) the non-life insurance directive, (b) the liberalisation of audio-visual services, (c) the directive liberalising long term capital movements, and (d) the directive liberalising short term capital movements.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Scottish Office officials give policy, technical and other advice to the European Commission, both in conjunction with colleagues in other United Kingdom Departments and direct, as appropriate, on a whole range of issues including many of those referred to by the hon. Member.

  Industrial Production
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the index of industrial production by market sector, with 1979 = 100.

  Mr. Lang
  These figures are regularly published by the Scottish Office and are updated each quarter. Current figures are based with 1985 = 100, and a statistical bulletin is shortly to be published showing annual market sector indices back to 1958.

  The market sector indices for 1988, resealed to 1979 = 100, are as follows:

  1988 Index 1979 = 100

  Production industries

  104·8

  Total consumer goods

  94·0

  Consumer durables

  70

  Consumer non-durables

  97

  Investment goods

  121·8

  Intermediate goods

  103·3

  Source: Index of industrial Production for Scotland.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits and running cost limits for 1989–90 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Yes. I intend to make changes to four of the cash limits within my responsibility.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 14—prisons, hospitals and community health services, etc, Scotland—will be increased by £15,758,000 from £1,987,631,000 to £2,003,389,000. Most of the increase, £16,000,000, follows the decision to implement the recommendations on pay of the review bodies in respect of doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and health visitors, and professions allied to medicine as announced on 16 February 1989. This is partially offset by a reduction of £322,000 following the transfer of responsibility for radiography training from Greater Glasgow health board to Queens college, Glasgow. A corresponding increase will be made to class XVI, vote 15. In addition £80,000 has been transferred from class XVI, vote 17 to cover the cost of appointing dental practice advisers.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 15 education, arts, libraries and social work, Scotland—will be increased by £322,000 from £215,327,000 to £215,649,000 to meet the costs of running the Glasgow school of Radiography following transfer of responsibility from Greater Glasgow health board to Queen's college, Glasgow. This is being offset by a corresponding reduction in class XVI, vote 14.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the cash limit for the Scottish Office administration vote, class XVI, vote 21 will be increased by £148,000 from £120,210,000 to £120,358,000 to meet the cost of processing data for England and Wales in connection with the beef special premium scheme. As a consequence the running costs limit for the Scottish Office will be increased by £148,000 from £205,717,000 to £205,865,000. This increase will be offset by corresponding reductions in the cash limits and running cost limits of the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, class IV, votes 5 and 2.

  Cashblock SO/LA2, which covers mainly housing capital expenditure by local authorities and capital expenditure by new towns and presently stands at £327,500,000, is to be decreased by £600,000 to £326,900,000. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Supplementary Estimate for class XVI, vote 9 (new towns and the urban programme), this amount will be used to meet increased requirements for the urban partnership initiatives.

  These changes represent a net charge on the Reserve of £15,678,000 and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Forfar Bypass (Accidents)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any recommendations, following the consultations between his Department and Tayside region, about accidents on the Forfar bypass; if 660
  the monitoring of traffic and the study of junction design lay-out by his Department, Tayside region and Tayside police has led to recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: An analysis of road accidents on the Forfar bypass prepared by Tayside regional council has recently been received and has been considered by the Scottish Development Department. As a result, the regional council has been asked to prepare urgently short-term measures to improve safety that can be implemented quickly. They have also been requested to look at options for a more major upgrading of the junctions.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide as much information as possible about his Department's expenditure on commercial televison advertising, without breaching commercial confidentiality, over each of the past five years.

  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: The expenditure was as shown in the table:

  Year

  £

  1984–85

  161,218

  1985–86

  101,176

  1986–87

  82,275

  1987–88

  115,791

  1988–89

  474,844

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much advertising air time his Department purchased with each commercial television company in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: Information on television advertisements in the form requested is commercially confidential.

EMPLOYMENT

  Community Insulation Projects
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has regarding the number of community insulation projects which are likely to terminate on 31 May at the end of the three month extension to the community programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the applicability in Great Britain of the action for community employment scheme run by the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the future of insulation projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No assessment has been made because employment and training conditions in Northern Ireland are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1989–90.

  Mr. Fowler
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary summer Supplementary and Revised Estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit on class VII, vote I (training programmes) will be increased by £155,522,000 from £2,467,895,000 to £2,623,417,000, due to organisational changes within the Employment Department group resulting in responsibility for some enterprise and small firms functions and other activities transferring to the Training Agency from the Department of Employment. The majority of this increase is offset by a reduction in class VII, vote 2 (employment programmes and central services).

  The cash limit on class VII, vote 2, will be reduced by £151,893,000 from £785,824,000 to £633,931,000. This is a net result of the transfer of £155,522,000 to the Training Agency (class VII, vote I) of some enterprise and small firms functions and associated running costs and other administrative costs; an increase in provision of £5,873,000 to make payment to the Department of Social Security (class XV, vote 7) in respect of work done by that Department in connection with payments to employment training and youth training scheme participants; a net transfer of £1,326,000 in provision to the Central Statistical Office (CSO) (class XIX, vote 18), due to the transfer of some statistical work relating to the retail prices index and the family expenditure survey from the Department of Employment to CSO; receipts of £1,104,000 from CSO (class XIX, vote 18) in respect of the statistical and administrative support work which the Department of Employment will carry out on a repayment basis; £11,000 additional receipts for work carried out by the Department of Employment for other Government Departments; a transfer of £244,000 from the Department of Social Security (class XV, vote 7), following the change in responsibility for accommodation costs at Reading and Livingston; and a net decrease in provision of £47,000 for payments to seconded Employment Department group staff.

  There will be a new cash limited vote, class VII, vote 5, to facilitate the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency (STA). This new token vote of £1,000 includes provision for expenses to be incurred by the Department of Employment in connection with the privatisation of STA. The Secretary of State for Employment announced the intention to privatise to the House of Commons on 13 March 1989, at column 23.

  These changes will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  There will be a decrease of £193,000 in the Employment Department group's overall running costs to £960,532,000. This is the net result of changes in the running costs limits on class VII, vote 1 and class VII, vote 2. The running costs limit on class VII, vote 2 will be reduced by £7,021,000 from £649,165,000 to £642,144,000. 'This is the net result of transferring £6,828,000 to class VII, vote I to cover the staffing of the small firms service and the enterprise allowance scheme; transferring £437,000 to the Central Statistical Office (class XIX, vote 18); and
  662
  increasing provision by £244,000 from the Department of Social Security (class XV, vote 7) for accommodation costs. The running costs limit for class VII, vote I will correspondingly be increased by £6,828,000 from £204,799,000 to £211,627,000.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the number of persons(a) entering and (b) leaving the employment training programme since its inception (i) for each month and (ii) cumulatively.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The informal ion required is given in the following table.

  Employment Training entrants and leavers

  Entrants

  Leavers (estimated)

  September

  21,500

  1,000

  October

  31,100

  5,000

  November

  35,200

  7,000

  December

  28,900

  7,000

  January

  36,700

  11,000

  February

  43,800

  19,000

  March

  42,200

  26,000

  April

  36,300

  n/a

  Cumulative total

  274,900

  76,000

  n/a—Not available.

  Note: The total of the monthly entrants figures does not equal the cumulative total because of rounding and later adjustments.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of employment training places available on Ile latest date for which information is available in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  In May 1989 there were 34,900 contracted employment training places in Scotland.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of employment training places occupied on the latest available date for which information is available in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  On 12 May 1989 there were 22,000 people participating in employment training in Scotland.

  Graduates
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of graduates in employment, and as a percentage of all in employment, in each of the standard regions and Wales for each of the years 1983 to 1988;

  (2) what was the total number and percentages of graduates in employment in each of the standard regions and Wales in each year from 1983 to 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answers 19 May 1989]: Estimates from labour force surveys are as shown in the following table:
  663

  Graduates of working age1, in employment by region

  Spring estimates

  Thousands and per cent.

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21988

  Graduates in Employment (000's)

  Northern region

  58

  59

  50

  64

  73

  62

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  100

  97

  91

  112

  117

  120

  East Midlands region

  77

  88

  93

  99

  91

  104

  East Anglia region

  43

  46

  48

  55

  60

  60

  South East region

  680

  696

  754

  785

  783

  807

  of which Greater London

  331

  340

  386

  372

  393

  414

  South West region

  96

  117

  115

  117

  127

  115

  West Midlands region

  95

  106

  108

  115

  123

  133

  North West region

  148

  134

  147

  138

  176

  181

  Wales

  51

  56

  56

  74

  61

  60

  (i) Percentage of all in employment

  Northern region

  4·9

  5·0

  4·2

  5·3

  5·9

  4·9

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  5·1

  4·9

  4·5

  5·6

  5·7

  5·8

  East Midlands region

  4·7

  5·3

  5·6

  5·8

  5·4

  5·8

  East Anglia region

  5·4

  5·6

  5·8

  6·4

  6·8

  6·4

  South East region

  9·3

  9·2

  9·8

  10·2

  10·0

  9·9

  of which Greater London

  11·4

  11·5

  12·9

  12·7

  13·2

  13·5

  South West region

  5·4

  6·4

  6·0

  6·1

  6·4

  5·8

  West Midlands region

  4·6

  5·1

  5·1

  5·3

  5·7

  5·8

  North West region

  5·9

  5·3

  5·7

  5·4

  6·7

  6·7

  Wales

  5·1

  5·4

  5·4

  7·1

  5·7

  5·5

  (ii) Percentage of all graduates

  Northern region

  85·4

  83·5

  82·2

  82·7

  84·2

  84·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  80·4

  85·7

  84·6

  86·3

  86·5

  79·4

  East Midlands region

  86·0

  84·7

  88·5

  87·3

  86·8

  90·0

  East Anglia region

  80·1

  88·7

  88·3

  82·8

  83·9

  85·6

  South East region

  82·9

  85·5

  84·5

  84·7

  85·6

  87·8

  of which Greater London

  82·9

  84·5

  83·7

  82·1

  86·0

  87·8

  South West region

  80·8

  82·9

  83·6

  84·9

  90·2

  88·2

  West Midlands region

  81·7

  83·5

  82·9

  90·2

  86·6

  88·3

  North West region

  84·7

  78·9

  84·8

  86·1

  87·7

  88·5

  Wales

  83·8

  82·0

  79·2

  86·7

  80·1

  82·0

  Source: Labour Force Surveys.

  1 Men aged 16–64, women aged 16–59. Graduates can only be identified for this age group.

  2 Preliminary results (1988 only).

  Qualifications
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were(a) the total number of people of working age, (b) the percentage with (i) A-levels or equivalents or highers, (ii) 0-levels or equivalent, (iii)

  Persons of working age' by highest qualification and region

  Spring estimates

  Thousands and per cent.

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21988

  Northern region

  All of working age (000's = 100 per cent.)

  1,876

  1,879

  1,879

  1,877

  1,878

  1,886

  `A' level or higher

  27·5

  32·0

  32·5

  34·3

  34·7

  33·1

  'O' level or equivalent

  13·0

  14·3

  13·1

  15·0

  16·2

  15·5

  Below '0' level

  10·6

  7·6

  10·I

  9·6

  11·5

  12·3

  No qualification

  49·0

  46·2

  44·3

  41·1

  37·6

  39·1

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  All of working age (000's = 100 per cent.)

  2,939

  2,956

  2,964

  2,969

  2,977

  2,990

  `A' level or higher

  28·8

  31·3

  32·8

  33·1

  33·8

  33·7

  'O' level or equivalent

  12·7

  13·6

  14·9

  16·3

  17·0

  16·3

  Below 'O' level

  9·2

  8·8

  9·9

  10·4

  10·6

  12·4

  No qualification

  49·3

  46·2

  42·4

  40·3

  38·7

  37·6

  East Midlands region

  All of working age (000's=100 per cent.)

  2,329

  2,355

  2,377

  2,398

  2,418

  2,428

  `A' level or higher

  28·2

  32·8

  33·7

  33·6

  32·0

  33·0

  `O' level or equivalent

  12·9

  15·5

  14·6

  14·9

  16·0

  16·8

  Below 'O' level

  9·8

  9·0

  10·0

  11·2

  12·1

  13·3

  664
  achievements below O-level and (iv) no vocational or educational qualifications, for each of the standard regions and 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:
  665

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21988

  No qualification

  49·1

  42·7

  41·7

  40·3

  39·9

  36·9

  East Anglia region

  All of working age (000's = 100 per cent.)

  1,137

  1,151

  1,170

  1,185

  1,201

  1,206

  'A' level or higher

  28·6

  31·9

  32·4

  33·5

  35·1

  34·3

  'O' level or equivalent

  13·6

  15·5

  16·4

  16·5

  17·7

  18·7

  Below 'O' level

  12·3

  10·1

  11·1

  12·6

  12·6

  13·0

  No qualification

  45·5

  42·5

  40·2

  37·4

  34·6

  34·1

  South East region

  All of working age (000's = 100 per cent.)

  10,289

  10,394

  10,462

  10,524

  10,570

  10,623

  'A' level or higher

  34·5

  37·0

  38·4

  37·8

  38·2

  37·9

  'O' level or equivalent

  16·3

  17·7

  18·2

  18·2

  19·1

  19·6

  Below 'O' level

  10·3

  10·0

  10·0

  11·4

  11·6

  13·0

  No qualification

  38·9

  35·3

  33·4

  32·6

  31·1

  29·4

  Greater London

  All of working age (000's = 100 per cent.)

  4,145

  4,166

  4,170

  4,180

  4,179

  4,203

  'A' level or higher

  33·7

  36·8

  39·0

  37·7

  37·7

  37·7

  'O' level or equivalent

  15·6

  16·6

  16·8

  16·2

  17·5

  17·4

  Below O' level

  9·1

  8·9

  9·6

  11·0

  10·8

  13·1

  No qualification

  41·6

  37·8

  34·5

  35·1

  33·9

  31·9

  South West region

  All of working age (000's = 100 per cent.)

  2,564

  2,594

  2,629

  2,660

  2,697

  2,709

  'A' level or higher

  32·0

  36·7

  37·1

  36·4

  36·9

  36·3

  'O' level or equivalent

  16·7

  18·1

  17·8

  18·3

  18·4

  19·6

  Below *O' level

  9·9

  10·1

  10·6

  12·4

  12·3

  13·1

  No qualification

  41·3

  35·1

  34·5

  32·9

  32·3

  31·0

  Wesi Midlands region

  All of working age (000's = 100 per cent.)

  3,143

  3,162

  3,175

  3,179

  3,194

  3,208

  'A' level or higher

  26·3

  29·6

  30·1

  31·3

  30·7

  30·2

  'O' level or equivalent

  13·0

  13·9

  14·5

  14·8

  16·1

  16·4

  Below 'O' level

  10·0

  10·2

  9·5

  11·4

  11·4

  13·5

  No qualification

  50·7

  46·3

  45·9

  42·4

  41·8

  39·9

  North West region

  All of working age (000's = 100 per cent.)

  3,825

  3,849

  3,846

  3,850

  3,858

  3,875

  'A' level or higher

  30·3

  33·7

  34·8

  33·1

  35·5

  34·8

  'O' level or equivalent

  14·0

  15·0

  16·4

  16·2

  16·3

  17·0

  Below 'O' level

  9·3

  9·1

  9·1

  10·9

  10·4

  12·4

  No qualification

  46·4

  42·2

  39·7

  39·9

  37·8

  35·8

  Wales

  All of working age (000's = 100 per cent.)

  1,659

  1,665

  1,673

  1,681

  1,694

  1,701

  'A' level or higher

  25·2

  30·8

  31·6

  32·4

  31·1

  31·7

  'O' level or equivalent

  15·2

  15·7

  16·4

  16·6

  16·8

  17·1

  Below 'O' level

  10·0

  7·5

  8·3

  8·7

  9·9

  11·7

  No qualification

  49·6

  46·0

  43·8

  42·3

  42·2

  39·5

  1 Men aged 16 to 64, women aged 16 to 59.

  2 Preliminary results (1988 only).

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Second Jobs
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people with a second job in each of the standard regions and Wales for each of the years 1983, inclusive.
  666
  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: Estimates from labour force surveys are as shown in the following table:
  667

  Persons in employment with a second job, by region

  Spring estimates (Thousands)

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Northern region

  31

  31

  34

  33

  40

  45

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  48

  51

  73

  79

  72

  87

  East Midlands region

  42

  52

  56

  67

  70

  67

  East Anglia region

  23

  29

  33

  33

  38

  47

  South East region

  185

  270

  284

  284

  286

  344

  (of which Greater London)

  59

  94

  89

  97

  93

  105

  South West region

  58

  70

  85

  89

  87

  88

  West Midlands region

  42

  55

  66

  68

  73

  92

  North West region

  53

  74

  79

  88

  83

  95

  Wales

  19

  21

  22

  28

  33

  40

  1 Preliminary results (1988 only).

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the unemployment rate by age and sex for the standard regions and Wales, and for each of the year 1983 based on the labour force survey.

  Unemployment2 rates by age, sex and region

  Spring estimates

  Thousands

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  31988

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Northern region

  All 162

  16·9

  11·3

  16·9

  14·1

  16·0

  12·4

  15·8

  11·6

  14·9

  11·0

  15·0

  11·6

  16–19

  36·2

  27·4

  24·7

  29·5

  28·7

  20·3

  25·0

  21·6

  25·6

  17·3

  18·8

  17·8

  20–24

  23·8

  16·3

  31·9

  17·9

  23·9

  16·2

  28·6

  18·8

  22·8

  13·7

  16·1

  13·8

  25–34

  17·6

  12·3

  16·3

  17·4

  14·5

  16·6

  15·4

  13·0

  15·1

  14·7

  17·3

  14·3

  35–49

  10·9

  6·0

  12·9

  10·0

  12·6

  8·7

  11·7

  7·1

  10·4

  8·1

  12·7

  8·3

  50–59

  11·3

  1—

  11·5

  1—

  14·2

  1—

  11·8

  1—

  12·6

  1—

  14·6

  1—

  60+

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Yorks and Humberside region

  All 162

  13·8

  10·2

  12·4

  11·2

  12·9

  10·9

  12·4

  10·3

  12·4

  9·5

  11·7

  9·4

  16–19

  28·6

  21·7

  24·2

  21·5

  21·4

  19·9

  18·4

  22·8

  21·2

  17·3

  19·1

  16·8

  20–24

  21·0

  16·2

  22·2

  15·1

  22·3

  16·8

  19·8

  15·1

  20·2

  13·2

  18·7

  12·7

  25–34

  14·6

  12·6

  11·4

  13·6

  12·7

  13·4

  11·2

  12·1

  12·5

  11·7

  11·3

  11·5

  35–49

  8·5

  6·1

  9·0

  7·7

  8·6

  6·2

  9·4

  7·0

  7·5

  5·9

  7·5

  5·9

  50–59

  10·6

  1—

  8·6

  7·2

  9·8

  7·8

  11·0

  1—

  10·5

  6·5

  11·6

  1—

  60–

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  14·8

  1—

  1—

  1—

  East Anglia region

  All 162

  9·6

  9·4

  7·2

  8·1

  7·5

  9·7

  7·3

  8·7

  7·6

  9·1

  4·7

  6·1

  16–19

  20·0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  20–24

  20·6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  25–34

  1—

  1—

  9·9

  1—

  1—

  13·1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  35–49

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  5·8

  1—

  1—

  7·7

  1—

  1—

  50–59

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  60+

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South East region

  All 162

  8·7

  8·3

  8·0

  8·5

  7·8

  8·2

  8·4

  8·2

  7·8

  7·4

  5·8

  6·1

  16–19

  19·6

  16·7

  16·8

  14·1

  15·7

  13·1

  16·5

  12·7

  12·9

  10·4

  9·2

  8·1

  20–24

  14·0

  9·5

  12·8

  11·6

  11·2

  9·3

  12·8

  9·6

  10·0

  9·8

  8·4

  8·2

  25–34

  8·2

  10·2

  7·2

  9·4

  7·8

  10·4

  8·8

  10·8

  7·4

  8·9

  5·0

  7·1

  35–49

  5·8

  6·6

  5·2

  6·8

  5·8

  6·5

  5·5

  6·2

  5·8

  6·0

  3·9

  4·6

  50–59

  6·6

  4·9

  6·8

  5·5

  5·6

  5·7

  6·9

  5·8

  7·6

  5·1

  6·7

  5·1

  60+

  7·4

  1—

  7·5

  5·8

  7·1

  1—

  6·2

  1—

  8·4

  1—

  6·0

  1—

  Greater London

  16–19

  20·3

  15·0

  20·7

  19·5

  17·1

  18·5

  23·1

  16·4

  18·5

  12·7

  14·1

  13·1

  20–24

  15·5

  10·6

  14·1

  14·5

  12·1

  10·2

  14·7

  11·5

  13·7

  10·0

  11·8

  9·4

  25–34

  10·9

  10·6

  9·2

  10·7

  10·4

  10·2

  12·8

  10·4

  9·7

  8·2

  7·6

  7·6

  35–49

  7·9

  7·1

  7·1

  8·1

  7·4

  8·4

  8·0

  7·5

  8·6

  6·2

  5·7

  5·6

  50–59

  6·9

  5·0

  7·4

  5·1

  6·9

  6·1

  8·4

  6·3

  8·7

  5·2

  9·9

  6·9

  60+

  9·2

  1—

  9·5

  1—

  9·4

  1—

  1—

  1—

  8·1

  1—

  7·0

  1—

  South West region

  All 162

  8·9

  8·5

  8·1

  8·9

  7·2

  8·2

  8·5

  8·5

  7·8

  8·8

  5·8

  6·8

  668
  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: Estimates from labour force surveys are as shown in the following table:
  669

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  16–19

  21·3

  18·1

  16·9

  13·8

  12·8

  12·6

  19·5

  15·5

  17·0

  11·2

  11·2

  1—

  20–24

  12·7

  11·7

  11·6

  17·5

  12·1

  10·4

  14·8

  10·2

  9·0

  10·9

  8·8

  9·6

  25–34

  8·6

  9·5

  8·5

  10·4

  7·6

  10·7

  6·7

  9·9

  8·3

  12·9

  4·9

  9·2

  35–49

  6·4

  6·1

  5·8

  5·9

  4·9

  6·6

  4·9

  7·3

  5·1

  6·5

  4·2

  5·5

  50–59

  5·2

  1—

  6·3

  1—

  5·1

  1—

  8·1

  1—

  6·8

  1—

  5·1

  1—

  60+

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  West Midlands region

  All·162

  14·9

  12·0

  14·6

  12·0

  14·3

  12·5

  12·2

  10·9

  13·2

  10 4

  8·8

  7·8

  16–19

  23·4

  25·4

  26·9

  24·6

  25·9

  23·7

  21·1

  22·0

  25·7

  16·6

  16·2

  11·2

  20–24

  22·1

  16·2

  24·4

  16·2

  20·3

  20·1

  16·4

  16·9

  13·9

  13·8

  9·4

  10·4

  24–34

  14·9

  13·3

  13·9

  15·6

  13·9

  14·4

  12·8

  13·1

  13·5

  13·7

  8·5

  10·1

  35–49

  11·3

  9·4

  10·6

  7·5

  11·3

  7·7

  9·7

  6·7

  10·9

  8·0

  7·0

  6·1

  50–59

  12·9

  1—

  11·1

  1—

  11·2

  6·7

  10·2

  1—

  13·3

  1—

  8·1

  1—

  60·

  14·5

  1—

  13·0

  1—

  11·5

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10·7

  1—

  North West region

  All 162

  15·0

  11·6

  15·6

  12·3

  14·0

  11·4

  14·3

  11·9

  12·9

  11·8

  12·2

  10·1

  16–19

  26·1

  24·2

  28·3

  24·3

  22·6

  24·4

  26·3

  26·6

  21·8

  21·3

  21·6

  18·7

  20–24

  24·9

  17·0

  25·8

  18·7

  24·1

  15·5

  21·3

  18·8

  19·5

  17·6

  18·3

  14·6

  25–34

  14·7

  13·5

  16·0

  12·4

  14·9

  11·0

  15·9

  12·7

  13·0

  12·9

  12·8

  12·9

  35–49

  10·8

  8·0

  10·1

  8·3

  9·9

  8·7

  10·1

  7·2

  9·2

  8·4

  8·2

  6·0

  50–59

  12·1

  6·2

  12·4

  8·2

  9·9

  6·7

  8·8

  7·3

  10·5

  7·8

  9·1

  6·6

  60+

  9·8

  1—

  10·9

  1—

  10·0

  1—

  12·6

  1—

  11·0

  1—

  12·9

  1—

  Wales

  All 162

  15·9

  11·4

  14·6

  13·3

  13·8

  11·3

  15·2

  112·3

  14·2

  11·3

  11·9

  10·4

  16–19

  34·5

  28·0

  25·9

  30·4

  23·7

  22·3

  23·8

  24·9

  21·0

  23·6

  18·2

  1—

  20–24

  27·3

  15·5

  25·7

  18·3

  23·0

  15·7

  27·7

  18·0

  21·6

  1—

  17·9

  1—

  25–34

  15·0

  11·4

  15·4

  15·1

  12·9

  11·5

  15·9

  15·5

  15·7

  18·6

  10·5

  13·6

  35–49

  10·4

  7·4

  10·4

  9·1

  10·2

  9·2

  10·6

  9·7

  12·2

  7·4

  8·7

  8·2

  50–59

  11·0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  11·9

  1—

  9·9

  1—

  1—

  1—

  13·6

  1—

  60+

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Source: Labour Force Surveys.

  1 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

  2 Labour Force Definition.

  3 Preliminary results (1988 only).

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give the occupational analysis of people in employment by broad grouping, based on the labour force survey, in each of the standard regions and Wales, for each of the years 1983 to 1988;

  (2) what was the total number of people, based on the labour force survey of occupational analysis of people in

  Persons in employment by broad occupation group, sex and region

  Spring estimates, Thousands

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  31988

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Employees and Self-employed2

  Managerial and Professional

  Northern region

  181

  98

  186

  98

  189

  104

  209

  120

  220

  136

  205

  128

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  312

  188

  344

  183

  358

  185

  353

  206

  351

  225

  371

  219

  East Midlands region

  278

  141

  308

  163

  323

  158

  307

  164

  299

  169

  326

  174

  East Anglia region

  149

  64

  162

  77

  163

  87

  179

  87

  177

  99

  179

  98

  South East region

  1,652

  801

  1,741

  873

  1,859

  907

  1,887

  908

  1,823

  952

  1,908

  997

  of which Greater London

  605

  350

  652

  374

  725

  405

  705

  376

  677

  399

  723

  406

  South West region

  350

  186

  383

  215

  394

  211

  412

  214

  392

  230

  409

  245

  West Midlands region

  369

  173

  373

  187

  395

  201

  417

  215

  379

  222

  423

  242

  North West region

  443

  257

  440

  252

  484

  284

  470

  269

  486

  298

  489

  322

  Wales

  183

  108

  202

  127

  194

  112

  211

  126

  198

  115

  198

  130

  Clerical and related

  Northern region

  34

  125

  28

  119

  30

  125

  27

  135

  33

  145

  33

  140

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  48

  212

  59

  216

  51

  220

  46

  223

  54

  225

  49

  242

  East Midlands region

  40

  174

  45

  189

  43

  189

  37

  190

  39

  199

  46

  202

  East Anglia region

  25

  92

  25

  89

  21

  97

  20

  104

  27

  97

  26

  113

  South East region

  341

  1,080

  319

  1,104

  302

  1,149

  290

  1,172

  330

  1,217

  354

  1,237

  of which Greater London

  168

  464

  136

  446

  139

  480

  128

  473

  154

  510

  162

  482

  South West region

  64

  209

  62

  216

  60

  228

  54

  227

  62

  249

  62

  266

  West Midlands region

  53

  243

  44

  248

  47

  252

  49

  262

  51

  260

  56

  255

  670
  employment by sex (a) for each of the broad groupings in the survey and (b) on Government employment and training programmes, for each standard region and 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:
  671

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  31988

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  women

  Men

  Women

  North West region

  88

  306

  74

  292

  86

  306

  71

  297

  89

  312

  85

  336

  Wales

  27

  106

  24

  103

  26

  110

  27

  118

  29

  107

  28

  115

  Other Non-Manual

  Northern region

  37

  66

  30

  66

  33

  60

  42

  63

  41

  55

  46

  67

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  69

  87

  63

  89

  66

  95

  70

  92

  66

  92

  71

  91

  East Midlands region

  60

  63

  62

  66

  54

  66

  64

  64

  63

  66

  70

  71

  East Anglia region

  38

  34

  43

  35

  41

  33

  47

  32

  42

  43

  40

  48

  South East region

  289

  279

  297

  314

  305

  305

  289

  301

  306

  310

  323

  306

  of which Greater London

  103

  102

  107

  104

  114

  104

  105

  109

  106

  102

  113

  120

  South West region

  80

  80

  82

  82

  80

  92

  81

  94

  86

  85

  92

  99

  West Midlands region

  68

  84

  66

  76

  68

  80

  71

  85

  77

  89

  88

  91

  North West region

  83

  101

  78

  97

  87

  107

  90

  119

  81

  114

  85

  116

  Wales

  31

  47

  34

  44

  33

  50

  32

  52

  32

  51

  36

  48

  Craft and similar

  Northern region

  207

  24

  219

  22

  205

  25

  197

  22

  196

  19

  193

  24

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  331

  36

  346

  44

  342

  41

  337

  41

  334

  35

  324

  40

  East Midlands region

  286

  67

  286

  56

  285

  59

  299

  71

  289

  63

  287

  61

  East Anglia region

  120

  13

  127

  12

  133

  12

  126

  14

  132

  13

  135

  1—

  South East region

  1,050

  83

  1,065

  86

  991

  95

  967

  83

  1,018

  89

  1,034

  100

  of which Greater London

  389

  41

  381

  37

  346

  34

  328

  31

  347

  34

  335

  34

  South West region

  285

  21

  263

  22

  282

  26

  280

  29

  306

  27

  305

  24

  West Midlands region

  373

  31

  375

  44

  369

  45

  367

  42

  370

  42

  376

  52

  North West region

  406

  50

  413

  59

  397

  42

  375

  53

  377

  61

  399

  51

  Wales

  171

  14

  173

  13

  175

  20

  155

  14

  156

  22

  171

  19

  General Labourers

  Northern region

  27

  1—

  22

  1—

  21

  1—

  16

  1—

  13

  1—

  13

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  44

  1—

  39

  1—

  31

  1—

  24

  17

  1—

  18

  1—

  East Midlands region

  37

  1—

  30

  1—

  31

  1—

  19

  1—

  15

  1—

  13

  1—

  East Anglia region

  1—

  1—

  10

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South East region

  47

  11

  47

  1—

  38

  1—

  47

  1—

  30

  1—

  26

  1—

  of which Greater London

  13

  1—

  12

  1—

  14

  1—

  19

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South West region

  16

  1—

  16

  1—

  10

  1—

  11

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  West Midlands region

  28

  1—

  28

  1—

  27

  1—

  23

  1—

  20

  1—

  21

  1—

  North West region

  30

  1—

  40

  1—

  31

  1—

  25

  1—

  20

  1—

  21

  1—

  Wales

  23

  1—

  19

  1—

  14

  1—

  13

  1—

  11

  1—

  11

  1—

  Other Manual

  Northern region

  206

  173

  199

  187

  205

  173

  191

  177

  191

  176

  207

  180

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  346

  299

  327

  300

  331

  294

  321

  300

  333

  302

  338

  287

  East Midlands region

  283

  214

  259

  221

  236

  219

  280

  226

  297

  212

  286

  238

  East Anglia region

  151

  123

  147

  120

  145

  112

  135

  119

  144

  115

  163

  142

  South East region

  1,063

  789

  1,091

  856

  1,105

  827

  1,075

  845

  1,095

  847

  1,158

  867

  of which Greater London

  450

  300

  467

  317

  436

  292

  436

  294

  434

  285

  449

  287

  South West region

  293

  239

  293

  234

  310

  256

  289

  241

  308

  262

  310

  259

  West Midlands region

  344

  300

  341

  300

  333

  282

  338

  301

  268

  300

  392

  312

  North West region

  408

  345

  408

  367

  400

  369

  431

  369

  425

  338

  425

  352

  Wales

  165

  130

  167

  141

  172

  140

  171

  138

  178

  141

  188

  149

  On Government employment and training programmes

  Northern region

  16

  11

  16

  1—

  19

  13

  23

  11

  30

  19

  31

  17

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  22

  15

  18

  10

  29

  12

  33

  13

  36

  20

  36

  19

  East Midlands region

  14

  10

  16

  10

  20

  1—

  21

  11

  24

  12

  25

  16

  East Anglia region

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  12

  1—

  South East region

  47

  36

  36

  28

  40

  31

  45

  25

  45

  25

  49

  34

  of which Greater London

  14

  11

  13

  1—

  11

  12

  15

  12

  19

  1—

  18

  14

  South West region

  17

  10

  16

  1—

  17

  10

  22

  12

  17

  14

  27

  15

  West Midlands region

  20

  12

  20

  13

  34

  20

  36

  18

  38

  21

  29

  24

  North West region

  29

  20

  31

  20

  33

  19

  36

  13

  50

  29

  48

  27

  Wales

  13

  1—

  12

  1—

  18

  1—

  15

  1—

  23

  14

  26

  11

  1 Sample size too small for a reliable estimate.

  2 Occupation data are only available for employees and self-employed. Not all person on Government employment and training programmes are asked the appropriate question.

  3 Preliminary results (1988 only).

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, based on the labour force 672
  survey, the total number employed in services in each of the standard regions and Wales for each of the years 1983 to 1988.
  673
  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: Estimates from labour force surveys are as shown in the following table:

  Employees and self-employed in service industries (SIC's 6–9), by region1

  Spring estimates

  Thousands

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21988

  Northern region

  679

  696

  672

  719

  763

  754

  Yorkshire and Humberside region

  1,124

  1,175

  1,196

  1,219

  1,264

  1,265

  East Midlands region

  865

  921

  896

  941

  951

  1,011

  East Anglia region

  495

  510

  511

  545

  579

  605

  South East region

  5,092

  5,334

  5,413

  5,495

  5,618

  5,855

  of which Greater London

  2,187

  2,230

  2,259

  2,276

  2,340

  2,402

  South West region

  1,149

  1,190

  1,275

  1,230

  1,366

  1,386

  West Midlands region

  1,121

  1,124

  1,154

  1,197

  1,231

  1,320

  North West region

  1,500

  1,506

  1,601

  1,593

  1,646

  1,701

  Wales

  592

  628

  633

  686

  652

  684

  Source: Labour Force Surveys.

  1 Industry data are available only for employees and self-employed. Not all persons on Government employment and training programmes are asked the appropriate question.

  2 Preliminary results (1988 only).

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in which of the wages councils a majority of the employer bodies supported abolition of wages councils in the recent public consultation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 19 May 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 May, at columns 155–56, to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Charge Leaflet
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to provide minority language versions of the community charge leaflet which is being sent to all households in England during May.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made to translate the leaflet "The Community Charge (the so called Poll Tax): How It Will Work for You" into other languages.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. The leaflet is being translated into Bengali, Cantonese, Gujerati, Hindi, Punjabi, Turkish, Urdu and Vietnamese. The translated versions will shortly be available free of charge. My Department will send them to councils and community associations, and will take advertisements in selected newspapers, to ensure that their availability is widely known.

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 3 May,Official Report, column 129, whether he will describe the circumstances when the police security services, Inland Revenue, or Customs and Excise will be able to obtain personal data, originally collected in relation to the football membership scheme, for purposes unconnected with the operation of the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I can envisage no circumstances in which the organisations mentioned would have access to 674
  the information collected for purposes unconnected with the national membership scheme for football supporters. Discussions with the data protection registrar have taken place and will continue as the scheme is drawn up by the Football Membership Authority.

  Urban Aid (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount that Bolton has received in inner urban aid funding over the last 10 years; how much funding is being made available for next year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Bolton borough council has received £34 million in urban programme resources since 1980. Decision on the urban programme allocations for local authorities next year will, as usual, be announced in the Autumn Statement.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by location in the county of South Yorkshire(a) which Government and local authority buildings do not meet the European economic Community guide levels and maximum admissible concentration levels for pollutants in their drinking water supply and (b) the pollutants concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Information about supplies to individual Government and local authority buildings is not held centrally. In the county of South Yorkshire Government buildings are supplied by the Yorkshire water authority. Information on the quality of such supplies is available from the Yorkshire water authority.

  West Midlands (Strategic Guidance)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to monitor the implementation of the strategic guidance for the west midlands published by his Department in respect of(a) the pace and scale of urban regeneration and efforts to stimulate industrial and housing development and to improve the environment, (b) trends in the factors affecting housing provision in the metropolitan district,

  675
  (c) the rate at which high technology firms are attracted to sites on the periphery, (d) the outward growth of built-up areas and development in innner city areas, and (e) the effects of shopping development outside town centres on those centres and on the shopping public.

  Mr. Ridley
  The seven metropolitan boroughs in the west midlands, acting jointly, have recently published a monitoring report on the 1988 strategic guidance entitled "Planning Trends in the West Midlands: 1988 Annual Monitor". This covers many of the points raised by my hon. Friend. I am arranging for a copy to be sent to him.

  Community Housing
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to assist community housing and starter homes.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government support a wide range of initiatives designed to provide housing for local people and those who are seeking to establish a home for the first time. these include:—the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for housing associations. Over the next three years, the number of new homes for rent approved by the Corporation is set to rise by 50 per cent. (to 24,000) while the low cost home ownership programme should nearly double in that period;
  — subsidised shared ownership schemes provided by local authorities and housing associations which allow the shared owner to buy out the remainder of the equity, thus providing a route to full home ownership;
  — assistance to tenants in the housing association and local authority sectors who wish to form housing co-operatives or other types of local management initiatives. In addition, there is a growing number of co-ownership societies constructing new homes in which members either have an equity stake or can buy outright; and
  — assistance by local authorities, in their role as enablers, to other landlords in their area using powers in section 25 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North of 22 May, he will give the notional community charge for the London borough of Ealing for the year 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 25 April,Official Report, column 532.

  Noise
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give consideration to providing a code of practice to local authorities on the action to be taken with regard to noise nuisance in order to establish a common standard for each action.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Secretary of State has approved a number of codes of practice on noise from various different sources which are designed to help local 676
  authorities to take a reasonably consistent approach to similar problems, while retaining the flexibility necessary to deal with local problems in a realistic way.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report, the submission of the United Kingdom to this October's meeting of the CITES; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The form of the United Kingdom submission to these conferences is normally finalised at the conference itself. Proceedings of conferences are regularly and routinely published by the CITES secretariat.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation he has made to the CITES organisation regarding its retrospective approval of ivory cargoes initially detained in the United Kingdom due to documentation discrepancies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In accordance with CITES controls on raw African ivory, the Department consults the CITES secretariat ivory unit on all import and export applications. No import of ivory is permitted without its concurrence.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what stage has been reached in his Department's consideration in conjunction with CITES of an import licence for approximately 1025 kilos of ivory exported from Zaire without a licence in June 1988 by Mr. Shivaz Virji of Ealing; what information he has regarding the ultimate proposed destination of the ivory: and what steps he has taken to determine whether it originated from elephants slaughtered illegally.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received no such application for an import licence.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that Britain is not used as a transit route for poached ivory.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department complies fully with the controls of the convention on international trade in endangered species on trade in ivory. Import and export permits for trade in raw African ivory are granted only with the approval of the CITES secretariat ivory unit, and if all other requirements of EC regulation 3626/82 are met.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those 18 African countries where the EEC considers the elephant population is no longer capable of sustaining commercial exploitation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are currently 19 African countries where the EEC considers that the elephant population is incapable of sustaining commerical exploitation as follows: Benin, Burkina Faso, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Ghinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Somalia.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further restrictions on the import of ivory are due to be announced by the European Commission.
  677
  Mrs. Bottomley
  The Department has no information on further restrictions on the import of ivory to be announced by the European Commission other than those included in my answer to the hon. Member's question on 15 March 1989.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) why an import licence was granted by his Department for 1,464 kilos of raw ivory which arrived from Zaire on a British Airways flight on 21 October 1988 with false tusk numbers; to whom in the United Kingdom the tusks were delivered; what information he has regarding the ultimate destination of the ivory; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) why his Department allowed the 252 tusks which arrived at Gatwick airport on 21 October 1988 to be renumbered; and what steps were taken to ensure the ivory was not from elephants slaughtered illegally.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Details of individual import and export applications are confidential and cannot be released. However, following confirmation from the CITES secretariat ivory unit that a particular consignment had been legally exported and on being satisfied that the requirements of EC regulation 3626/82 were met, the Department granted import licences for ivory from Zaire. The circumstances were that on arrival in the country it was discovered that the ivory had been incorrectly marked at its port of origin. After clarification and confirmation from the CITES secretariat that the cargo was legal, an official of the Zaire Government was authorised to re-mark the ivory. I understand that this ivory remains in Customs and Excise control.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the current number of ivory dealers in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has no information on the current number of ivory dealers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the level of funding received by the CITES organisation from ivory dealers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  According to the CITES secretariat ivory unit budget for 1989, a total of 35,000 US dollars is being contributed to the unit's funding by private concerns. Contributions from Governments including the United Kingdom, and conservation organisations, total 108,500 US dollars.

  Community Charge Leaflet
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made to produce versions of the leaflets "The Community Charge (the so called Poll Tax): How It Will Work for You" in Braille and moon for the blind and deaf-blind people.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is currently discussing with the Royal National Institute for the Blind ways in which the leaflet might be adapted for the visually handicapped.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made to 678
  translate the leaflet "The Community Charge (the so called Poll Tax): How It Will Work for You" into British sign language, on video, for profoundly deaf people whose only language is BSL.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am currently considering whether such arrangements might be necessary.

  Roman Baths (Huggin Hill)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made to safeguard the Roman bath complex at Huggin hill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Hammerson Group announced last week that it had decided to redesign its building to preserve and protect the Roman remains, under the close supervision of English Heritage. In the circumstances this is a good solution to a difficult problem, and is the result of all parties working constructively together.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to contact the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, in order to evaluate the policy options researched by the institute to combat the greenhouse effect in the energy sector.

  Mr. Ridley
  In studying the energy sector's contribution to the greenhouse effect and in participating fully in the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, we take account of all published work in this field including that of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

  Birds
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what opinions have been put by the EEC Commission to Her Majesty's Government on the extent to which the shooting of crows, rooks, jays and magpies, as covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, is consistent with the EEC birds directive 79/409; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this issue.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Commission has suggested that the provisions of the directive require that the killing of the species listed on schedule 2 part II to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 by authorised persons should be subject to a strictly controlled system of individual licensing. We consider that this would represent an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on farmers and landowners, would be costly to administer and would bring no conservation benefits. We have supplied the Commission with scientific data that shows that the population of none of the species concerned are endangered by present United Kingdom practices. We are trying to secure an amendment to the directive which would clarify the position on sensible pest control.

  Wildlife Conservation
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the response of Her Majesty's Government to the resolution of the EEC Parliament entitled "Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
  679
  Habitats" with particular reference to the proposals for the management and control of hunting and the prohibition of the use of lead shot, document A2–179/88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have noted the European Parliament's views as expressed in the motion for a resolution calling for a ban on the use of lead shot in shooting, including clay pigeon shooting, and for controls on bag limits.

  Current evidence does not provide justification for a national ban on the use of lead shot. The situation is being kept under review. The Nature Conservancy Council is consulting all interested parties to assess any potential danger to wildlife and its habitats. A working group of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation is co-ordinating research into all aspects of lead shot, with environmental issues as one of its main priorities.

  Flags
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money is spent annually on putting up flags from Government buildings for visiting dignitaries from overseas.

  Mr. Chope
  : The flying of flags on Government buildings on the ceremonial route and on Raleigh green at each ceremonial state visit, organised by the Lord Chamberlain's office on instructions from the Government, cost approximately £15,700 inclusive of labour and material for framework supports, flying of flags and hire of flagpoles.

  Football Grounds
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the weekly attendances at football grounds; how many arrests have taken place in football grounds over the last 12 months; and how many complaints about the proposed membership scheme for those attending football grounds he has received over the last five months.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer, 23 May 1989]: The Football League estimates that the weekly attendance at Football League matches is of the order of 450,000.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers collate the figures for the total number of arrests at Football League matches after the end of each season. Figures for 1988–89 are not yet available but in the first two months of the season there were over 1,700 arrests. The total for 1987–88 was 6,106.

  I have received 2,673 representations against the proposed national membership scheme for football supporters since 1 January.

  Leaflets
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many information leaflets were published by his Department in each of the past five years; and what was the total cost each year.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 24 May 1989]: The numbers and cost of new information leaflets and new editions of existing publications produced by my Department in each of the past five years were:

  680

  1984–85 17 at a cost of £710,686 (approx)

  1985–86 28 at a cost of £252,281

  1986–87 19 at a cost of £321,195

  1987–88 30 at a cost of £216,147

  1988–89 37 at a cost of £615,932

  In addition:

  1. The Royal Parks and Palaces Division produced leaflets aimed at the United Kingdom and overseas tourist market to the value of:

  1985 6 at a cost of £10,605

  1986 6 at a cost of £37,040

  1987 7 at a cost of £11,645

  1988 7 at a cost of £39,180

  2. The Property Services Agency has produced the following new leaflets and new editions:

  1984–85 None

  1985–86 2 at a cost of £15,487

  1986–87 7 at a cost of £77,641

  1987–88 13 at a cost of £38,964

  1988–89 18 at a cost of £148,145

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the target number of inspections and vists to be undertaken by the air pollution inspectors will be in the year 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 12 May 1989]: A target of 6,000 visits, to or in connection with registered works, is proposed for HMIP inspectors involved in air pollution control. This is a realistic estimate taking into account the need for significant amounts of inspector-time in developing a new system for registrations that will provide more information for the public.

  Water
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 742, he will state whether the chairmen and chief executives of the remaining water authorities are to receive an annual bonus giving the amount paid as a percentage of annual salary.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 30 January 1989]: No. None of the chairmen or executive members of the Anglian, South West or Thames water authorities received bonus payments for the financial year 1987–88.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the estimated cost for each of (a) Calshot, (b) Milford-onSea, (c) Christchurch bay, (d) Colwell bay, (e) Gurnard, (f) Cowes, (g) Ryde, (h) Seagrove, (i) St. Helens, (j) Bembridge, (k) Whitecliff bay and (l) Ventnor of (i) a long sea outfall, (ii) full sewage treatment works with a short sea outfall and (iii) full sewage treatment works with a long sea outfall to enable them to comply with EEC bathing water directive 76/160/EEC; and when the appropriate solutions will be in place, giving the estimated date of commencement and completion.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today.

  Lead Water Pipes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of
  681
  households which will need to replace or will be required to replace lead water pipes during the next (a) five and (b) 10 years; and what is his estimate of the average cost per household which this replacement will involve.

  Mr. Howard
  The lead concentration in a dwelling's water supply is dependent on a variety of factors, the relevance of which varies considerably in different parts of the country. The need to replace lead pipes will depend on the concentration in water of lead derived from those pipes. In view of this, it is not possible to give an estimate of the number of dwellings where pipe replacement may be desirable. The cost of lead pipe replacement for a dwelling will vary greatly depending on circumstances.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage increase from 1979 of(a) the state retirement pension, (b) the retail prices index and (c) the pensioner prices index.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Between November 1979 and April 19891 the level of the state retirement pension increased by 87·1 per cent. Between November 1979 and September 19882 the retail prices index increased by 79·9 per cent. Between the quarter ending September 1979 and the quarter ending September 19883 the pensioner prices index (one person household) increased by 75·5 per cent.

  Notes:

  1 Information given is for uprating dates.

  2 The level of retirement pension payable from April 1989 is based on the RPI figure for September 1988.

  3 Pensioner prices indices (for both one-and two-person households) are produced quarterly.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any proposals to change the present arrangements for payment of protected contributions for 1987–88 to private pension providers in respect of individuals who contracted out of the state earnings related pension scheme before 6 April; if he will give his latest estimate of the number of such individuals who contracted out during 1988–89 and backdated their election to 1987–88; by what date he expects 90 per cent. of relevant payments of 1987–88 protected contributions to have been made; if he will estimate the number and total value of such payments yet to be made; whether he will make it his policy to offer interest on late payment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The current arrangements for payment of the contracted-out rebate to pension providers are working satisfactorily. Personal pension applications have been processed promptly, and payments made to providers in respect of sums due for 1987–88 within a very short period of time. The very heavy volumes received in the last few weeks, however, will inevitably lead to some delay.

  It is estimated that approximately 3 million pensions have been taken out by the end of 1988–89, and the expectation is that nearly all of them have elected to backdate to the 1987–88 tax year. It is hoped that the vast majority of payments of the contracted-out rebate in respect of 1987–88 will have been made by the end of August. This will involve about a further 2 million
  682
  payments at an estimated total of £750 million in rebates. The payments will be made as quickly as possible, so the question of interest on late payments does not arise.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees are contracted out in defined benefit schemes, group money purchase schemes and personal pension schemes, respectively; and what would be the effect on the income and expenditure of the national insurance fund, in respect of each of these groups, of reducing the contracted-out rebate and the minimum contribution to personal pension schemes by 1 per cent. of relevant earnings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: It is estimated that approximately 3 million personal pensions (PP) have been taken out by the end of 1988–89. There is no information currently available on the effects of the changes under the 1986 Act to the numbers of contracted-out members of occupational schemes. On the assumption that contracted-out scheme membership is broadly unchanged it is estimated that there are about 9·5 million members of schemes. On this basis, it is estimated that a 1 per cent. reduction in the rebate rate in 1988–89 would have reduced the PP rebates in respect of that year by approximately £185 million and rebates for scheme members by approximately £850 million.

  Any effect on expenditure would depend upon precisely how the reduction in the rebate was reflected on the guaranteed minimum pensions (GMPs) which schemes have to provide in respect of contracted-out members, and in the notional GMPs which are deducted from SERPS benefits from those who have contracted-out money purchase or PP rebates.

  A change in the balance between the value of the rebate and the benefits forgone may affect the numbers opting to contract out, but no allowance has been made for this in the figures given.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  Transitional Protection Payments
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the savings following the end of transitional protection payments since the last uprating of social security benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following this year's uprating, some people continue to receive income support and housing benefit transitional protection. The extra cost of paying income support transitional protection on top of uprated benefit income of all claimants is estimated at £100 million for 1989–90.

  It is estimated that the annual expenditure on housing benefit transitional payments has reduced by about £3–2 million as a result of awards ending in April 1989 because of the flat rate reduction of £2·00.

  Charities (Hostel Status)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now conduct an urgent investigation into the circumstances in which his Department granted hostel status to the premises in 9A Oliver crescent, Harwick, run by the charity called the Reflections Trust 1987 Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not the responsibility of this Department to grant hostel status to any establishment.
  683
  The income support general regulations define "hostel" for income support purposes. Whether or not an establishment is a hostel is a matter of fact for determination by the adjudication officer in considering individual claims for benefit.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures are used to investigate the bona fide nature of Scottish charitable organisations which apply for Department of Social Security hostel status.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department does not routinely investigate the nature of charitable organisations in Scotland. There are therefore no set procedures.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department is currently considering any application for Department of Social Security hostel status for any premises situated in Scotland and managed by the Reflections Trust 1987 Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We know of no such premises which are currently under consideration.

  Loans
  Mr. Nellist
  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 midlands region and (ii) each of the 21 offices serving the West Midlands county area for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total value of applications for(a) budgetary loans, (b) cash loans and (c) community care grants from the social fund for the financial year between 4 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 in respect of his Department's local offices at Eston, Hartlepool, Redcar and Stockton.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details, by month, of the number of budgeting loans, crisis loans and community care grants processed by each local office since 11 April 1988, together with the value of these applications, is available in the Library. However, social fund data for March 1989 are not yet available as a check of the figures has revealed some inaccuracies which have resulted from a new method of calculating the month-end balances.

  The necessary adjustments are being made and the tables will be placed in the Library at the earliest possible opportunity.

  In addition, the value of applications processed during December 1988 remains unavailable because of an earlier computer malfunction.

  Leaflets
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans are being made to provide extra resources to the Department's leaflets unit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An additional separate distribution service, the Industrial Services Consortium in Bradford, has been contracted to supply statutory and care organisations with their leaflet requirements.
  684
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current average length of time taken to dispatch bulk orders of DSS welfare benefit leaflets to independent advice and law centres, local authorities and libraries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A newly contracted additional leaflets distributed service, which began operations from 1 May, is dispatching bulk orders of DSS leaflets on the basis of a five-day turnabout to advice centres, care agencies and local authorities. A 48-hour urgent demand service is also available. Libraries are being supplied by the leaflets unit at Canons Park and the average time is expected to be reduced with the introduction of the new arrangements from the present unacceptable average of six months to an average time of four weeks.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of the leaflet, "Our Business Is Service", being distributed to staff in local offices of his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total cost of printing and distributing the brochure "Our Business is Service" is £42,000. This includes the cost of distribution to staff within headquarters offices and the central offices at Newcastle and North Fylde.

  Fraud Prosecutions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the number of prosecutions for social security fraud in Wales giving the sums of money and the number of people involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 459 persons were prosecuted in courts in Wales for social security fraud in the period from 10 February 1988 to 28 February 1989. Of these, 393 cases involved offences concerning benefit fraud and 66 related to fraudulent encashment of instruments of payment. Information relating to the total amount of overpaid benefit in these cases is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, in 197 cases compensation orders totalling £97,174·01 were made in favour of the Department as a result of these proceedings.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the comprehensive set of indicators of the standards of living of households with incomes below the average developed by his Department and referred to in his speech, "The End of the Road for Poverty"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to "Households Below Average Income: A Statistical Analysis 1981–85" May 1988 and to "Low Income Statistics: Report of a Technical Review" March 1988. Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Date of Birth (Evidence)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions he gives to local Department of Social Security offices about information which is acceptable as evidence of date of birth; and what further guidelines apply for individuals born outside the United Kingdom.
  685
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Instructions to local office staff on the verification of age for social security purposes are covered in the general benefits (GB) code, for contributory benefits, and in the "Income Support Manual".

  For individuals born outside the United Kingdom, a certificate produced by the appropriate authority abroad is accepted unless there is any reason to doubt its validity.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there have been any changes to the cash limits or running costs limit of his Department for 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XV, vote 6 (Housing Benefit Administration) will be increased by £312,000 from £128,592,000 to £128,904,000. The revision provides for an additional payment to a local authority in Scotland towards the costs incurred in preparing for the introduction of the community charge rebate scheme.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XV, vote 7 (Administration and Miscellaneous Services) will be increased by £3,226,000 from £1,578,122,000 to £1,581,348,000. The revision takes account of a reassessment of requirements resulting from the division of the Departments of Social Security and of Health, namely £220,000, a transfer of responsibility for certain expenditure items previously borne on class XIV, vote 3, £3,257,000, a transfer of £5,873,000 from DE (class VII, vote 2) to meet additional DSS administration expenses in making payments to employment training and youth training scheme participants, and a transfer to DE of £244,000 to reflect a change in responsibility for accommodation costs at Reading and Livingston. These additional requirements are partially offset by an increase in receipts of £5,880,000 to the vote. The balance of the increase will he offset by transfers from other votes and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  As a result the running cost limit of the Department of Social Security is increased by £6,566,000 from £1,705,319,000 to £1,711,885,000.

  Elderly People (Benefits)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will prepare in tabular form a chart showing the provision of state pensions and other benefits for the elderly in terms of pounds sterling for each of the 12 countries in the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Department's publication "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities (Position at 1 January 1988)," a copy of which is in the Library. These tables set out the levels of benefit in the national currencies together with the sterling equivalent converted according to the OECD's purchasing power parity figures as explained in the introduction to the tables.

  Widows
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many widows and widowed mothers were 686
  affected by his announcement on 28 February, as respects his advice to women widowed before 11 April 1988, to contact local Department of Social Security offices if not contacted within six weeks; and how many have received payment under the new arrangements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: I regret that the information is not available. Some widows have been paid but the exact numbers are not known.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether those widows and widowed mothers who, during the period after 11 April 1988, obtained benefit, have to repay the Department of Social Security when they receive their widow's pension.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 May 1989]: Widows affected by my right hon. Friend's announcement on 28 February 1989 will not have to repay the benefit they have already received. Where the benefit obtained is income-related or overlaps with widow's pension, the arrears of widow's pension will be abated.

TRANSPORT

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to paragraph 30 of the consultation paper "New Roads by New Means"(a) what he regards as an appropriate toll level on the second Severn crossing and (b) what form of control Her Majesty's Government will place on the level of toll to be charged on the second Severn crossing.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Toll levels on the second Severn crossing will depend on tenderers' bids. We shall come forward in due course with proposals for the tolling regime.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects work to commence on the A41 No Mans Heath and Maceden bypass;

  (2) when he expects work to commence on the A49 Tiverton bypass;

  (3) when he expects work to commence on the A54/A556 to Kelsall bypass;

  (4) when he expects work to commence on the A556/A49—Morley Lane stretch;

  (5) when he expects work to commence on the A556 at Oakmere to Old Rectory Farm, Delamere;

  (6) when he expects work to commence on the Duddan and Clothen A51 bypass;

  (7) when he expects work to commence on the Tarpandey bypass to Tow Lane Ends;

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These corridor improvements were added to the national trunk road programme on 18 May by "Roads for Prosperity". The first step is for the Department to select a design agency which will investigate possible schemes. A programme for construction will be drawn up when this preparatory work has been completed.

  Marine Coastal Pollution Unit
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that the marine
  687
  coastal pollution unit can exercise control over a harbour authority in the event of a major oil spill occurring within the harbour limits.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the event of an accident to or in a ship causing or threatening to cause oil pollution on a large scale in the United Kingdom or United Kingdom territorial waters—inluding harbour areas—the Secretary of State has extensive statutory powers of intervention which would enable the marine pollution control unit to direct and control clean-up operations.

  Pollution (Cars)
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals there are to introduce standards equivalent to the United States emission standards on small cars within the remainder of countries of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The European Commission has recently made proposals which include the introduction of standards equivalent to the United States emission standards on small cars in 1993, throughout the Community.

  The Government support this move, provided it is implemented in a sensible way, without intermediate stages and respecting the unity of the market.

  The adoption of three-way catalysts could in some cases increase emission of CO2—the principal greenhouse gas. We shall therefore be pressing the Commission to bring forward proposals to tackle this.

  London Underground (Police)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of British Transport police officers now employed on the London Underground; how many are on secondment from the Metropolitan police; if he has any proposals for increasing the number of officers engaged in this work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A total of 338 British Transport police officers are currently employed on the London Underground and 80 officers from the Metropolitan and City police forces are also serving on the Underground while BTP officers are recruited and trained to fill the increased establishment of 400 announced last December for the Underground division of the force.

  That represents an increase of 50 officers and followed an increase from 280 to 350 in 1986.

  The establishment of the force is a matter for the British Transport police committee.

  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the English districts outside London that do not have a system of concessionary bus fares for those of state pensionable age.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department of Transport conducted a survey of all local authorities outside London in autumn 1986 to discover the details of concessionary fares schemes operating at that time. The results showed that there was no travel concessionary scheme for elderly 688
  people in the following 28 districts. We have no more recent information. It is possible that schemes may now operate in some of these areas.

  Avon

  Woodspring DC

  Cornwall

  Caradon DC

  Carrick DC

  Kerrier DC

  North Cornwall DC

  Penwith DC

  Cumbria

  Eden DC

  Devon

  East Devon DC

  Mid Devon DC

  South Hams DC

  West Devon DC

  Lincolnshire

  Boston BC

  South Holland DC

  West Lindsey DC

  North Yorkshire

  Hambleton DC

  Harrogate BC

  Richmondshire DC

  Scarborough BC

  Shropshire

  South Shropshire DC

  Dorset

  West Dorset DC

  Somerset

  Taunton Deane BC

  West Somerset DC

  Warwickshire

  Stratford-upon-Avon DC

  Hereford/Worcester

  Leominster

  Wiltshire

  Kennet DC

  North Wiltshire

  Salisbury DC

  West Wiltshire DC

  Pilot Autoguide System
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he proposes to ensure that the pilot autoguide system will not include route guidance for through traffic to use local roads; what powers local highway authorities will have of control over the guidance routes chosen and the equipment to be installed; and whether there will be any appeals procedure to resolve differences between local highway authorities and operators.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill currently before Parliament, the operation of an autoguide system in relation to public roads would require a licence from the Secretary of State.

  Clause 10(8) of the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to specify in a licence the classes of descriptions of

  689
  public road which may be included in route guidance. The Bill does not extend local highway authorities' existing powers to manage traffic in their areas.

  An autoguide pilot scheme would need to include the use of some local roads to allow a full assessment of the likely effects of a large scale commercial system. The Department of Transport has set up a group which would oversee the monitoring and evaluation of a pilot autoguide scheme in London, should a licence for one be awarded. The group includes representatives of local authority associations and the police.

  An autoguide operator's power to install equipment would, under clause 12 of the Bill, be subject to the street works code in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. This would require an operator to notify relevant highway authorities of proposals, and sets out procedures for resolving disputes.

  North Devon Link Road
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving personal injury have been recorded on the north Devon link road since it was opened and how many motorists have been cautioned or prosecuted for speeding on this section of the road from Tiverton to South Molton.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There have been six personal injury accidents on the section of north Devon Link between Tiverton and Newtown. Two of these accidents involved fatalities.

  There has been a high police presence on the road. They estimate that about 860 motorists have been cautioned or prosecuted for speeding.

  Bus Fares
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the most recent information his Department has on the level of bus fares since deregulation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Between 1985–86 and the 12 months ended September 1988, local bus fares outside London rose by an average of 19 per cent. Following the imposition of precept control, fares in metropolitan areas rose sharply from very low levels. In other areas outside London, the rise of 11 per cent. was broadly in line with inflation.

  M25
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the date when the M25 road was built; what was the cost at current prices of(a) re-surfacing work, (b) concrete relaying and (c) road rebuilding (i) undertaken since that date up to the present time and (ii) which he estimates is needed to bring the road up to high quality standard; who had the initial road-building contract; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of that work bearing in mind the longevity and usage of the road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information is not kept in the form requested and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The first section of what was to become the M25 London orbital motorway was opened in 1972 and the final section in 1986. Fifteen main civil engineering contractors were involved in its construction.
  690
  Major maintenance work, defined as capital schemes costing more than £500,000 (more than £250,000 before April 1987), has cost as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Outturn cost

  1985–86

  0·6

  1986–87

  —

  1987–88

  2·4

  1988–89

  19·8

  1989–90

  23·8

  1 Estimate.

  2 Provisional.

  Some major renewal has been necessary earlier than expected mainly because of much higher usage of the motorway than was originally forecast. Regular surveys are carried out to assess the continuing need for maintenance and major works are programmed in the most cost effective manner. All present major maintenance needs will be met by the expenditure provision for 1989–90. These works will be designed and executed to minimise disruption to traffic.

  M11
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the date when the M11 road was built; what was the cost at current prices of(a) resurfacing work, (b) concrete relaying and (c) road rebuilding (i) undertaken since that date up to the present time and (ii) which he estimates is needed to bring the road up to high quality standard; who had the initial road-building contract; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of that work bearing in mind the longevity and anticipated usage of the road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information is not kept in the form requested and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The first section of the M11 London-Cambridge motorway was opened in 1975 and the final section in 1980. Seven main civil engineering contractors were involved in its construction.

  Major maintenance work, defined as capital schemes costing more than £500,000 (more than £250,000 before April 1987), has cost as follows:

  Year

  Outturn cost

  (£ million)

  1985–86

  0·3

  1986–87

  —

  1987–88

  1·3

  1988–89

  11·1

  1989–90

  29·0

  1 Estimate.

  2 Provisional.

  The works have mainly been resurfacing and overlay which serves to preserve the road and defer the need for costly reconstruction. Regular surveys are carried out to assess the continuing need for maintenance and major works are programmed in the most cost effective manner. All present major maintenance needs will be met by the expenditure provision for 1989–90. These works will be designed and executed to minimise disruption to traffic.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the Lepe-based Venturers search and rescue service
  691
  has not been accepted by the coastguard's regional controller as an operational partner in life-saving activities in the Solent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping wrote to my hon. Friend on 21 March 1989 giving the background to this matter, and explaining his decision. I have nothing further to add to the contents of that letter.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make available accounts for Prestwick airport for the period 1985 to 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  £ million

  1983–88

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Income

  Traffic charges

  3·7

  3·8

  4·0

  4·5

  5·3

  Concessions and property

  2·0

  2·1

  2·0

  1·9

  2·5

  Total

  5·7

  5·9

  6·0

  6·4

  7·8

  Expenditure

  Staff costs

  3·2

  3·9

  4·3

  4·3

  5·2

  External charges

  4·1

  3·3

  2·8

  2·8

  3·6

  Depreciation

  1·8

  1·5

  1·4

  1·2

  1·1

  Total

  9·1

  8·7

  8·5

  8·3

  9·9

  Trading (loss)

  (3·4)

  (2·8)

  (2·5)

  (1·9)

  (2·1)

  A BAA note to these figures remarked the extraordinary expenditure of £0·75 million in 1987–88 in marketing support for an airline, Highland express; this sum may be discounted from the expenditure account evaluating the trend of financial performance.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the representations he has received from commercial and business organisations in support of his policy of maintaining Prestwick as Scotland's gateway airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Representations to my right hon. Friend about Scottish lowland airports policy have taken the form of private correspondence. It would be for those concerned to make their views public, if they wished.

  Harbour Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many harbour projects in(a) Yorkshire, and (b) Humberside have been carried out in the period from May 1979 to May 1989; where are the locations; how much money was granted to these projects; and what were the sources of the funds.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department does not have this information. Harbour developments do not require my right hon. Friend's approval, and except for certain fishery facilities have not been financed since 1979 by Government loans or grants.

  However in 1980 a grant of £19,200 was made for one harbour project in Yorkshire from the European regional development fund, and since 1980 grants totalling £6,382,800 have been made from the fund for 20 harbour projects on Humberside.
  692
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Figures relating to Prestwick airport appear in the annual reports by the British Airports Authority and its successor, BAA plc; copies are in the Library. For any further material I suggest my hon. Friend contacts BAA plc direct.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish the evidence which led him to conclude that there had been a steady improvement in the financial position of Prestwick airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information supplied, which was drawn from the relevant annual reports of the then British Airports authority and latterly BAA plc, was as follows:

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many London boroughs allow the orange badge scheme to be used only by disabled people resident in their own borough; which of the royal boroughs refuse to operate the orange badge scheme; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The orange badge scheme allows all badge holders to use the parking concessions wherever the scheme operates.

  The scheme does not operate in the Royal boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, nor in the City of London, City of Westminster and parts of London borough of Camden. This reflects the particular traffic problems in central London. The four authorities each operate their own concessionary scheme for people with disabilities who live or work in their area.

  We recently announced proposals to ensure that orange badges go only to those severely disabled people who need them most, and to curb abuse of the scheme. In the light of that, we have invited the four authorities to consider introducing elements of the national scheme in their areas.

  British Rail
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received a small number of representations from interested organisations and from individuals.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Chairman of British Rail; and what was discussed.
  693
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Rail on 17 May to discuss a variety of railway matters.

PRIME MINISTER

  Strategic Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to publish an indicative list of the circumstances in which Her Majesty's Government would authorise the use of the strategic nuclear deterrent.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Hazardous and Noxious Substances
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow on 27 April Official Report, column 613, if she will list the contents of Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the implementation of a hazardous and noxious substances convention as well as the alternative plans being presented; and how those proposals would prevent accidents such as occurred with the foundering of the MV Perentis in March.

  The Prime Minister
  The new hazardous and noxious substances convention being developed by the International Maritime Organisation's legal committee seeks to establish a liability and compensation regime in respect of incidents arising from the maritime carriage of HNS cargoes. Of the four alternatives being prepared for the legal committee, one places liability solely on the shipowner, another places liability on an international fund financed by cargo interests. The two other alternatives share liability between the shipowner and an international fund. The United Kingdom is preparing proposals on one of these shared alternatives, under which the international fund would purchase insurance cover to meet any compensation claims made against it.

  The marking, stowage and carriage of HNS cargoes are already subject to existing international conventions, developed and continually updated by the International Maritime Organisation.

  Westland plc
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Sir Leon Brittan has cleared with No. 10 Downing street his response to the inquiry by the Select Committee on Defence about the explanation of his remarks on Channel 4 television, alleging that Mr. Bernard Ingham and Mr. Charles Powell had approved the disclosure of a Law Officer's letter during the Westland affair.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the many answers given in statements and in reply to questions on this subject.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to give further assistance to countries with tropical rain forests to prevent their destruction.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 May, at column 211.

  European Community
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to consider legislation to return powers ceded to the European Community to the United Kingdom Parliament.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Global Warming (Research)
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the contribution by Her Majesty's Government to research and development connected with global warming in the current financial year; how much is planned for future years; and if she will break the figures down by departmental budget.

  The Prime Minister
  Research on climate change and the possible consequences of global warming is being undertaken on an international scale.

  The Government are currently spending over £15 million on research and development directly relevant to the understanding of climate change and global warming and this figure is likely to increase. Details of expenditure by departmental and research council budget are given in the table for 1989–90.

  In addition, a number of Departments are undertaking research and development work which will be relevant to the mitigation of and adaption to the consequence of climate change and global warming.

  Planned expenditure on climate change research and development in 1989–90

  £ million

  NERC

  11·2

  SERC

  2·0

  Met. Office

  0·75

  DOE

  0·59

  MAFF

  1·0

  Total

  15·54

  A major assessment of the scientific position on climate change by United Nations Environment Programme/World Meteorological Office is under way in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change under United Kingdom chairmanship, and the Government are providing £760,000 over two years in support of this work:.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to ban immediately the import and export of all ivory products and seek a similar ban within the European Economic Community; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Effective action to control the trade in ivory can only be taken on the basis of international co-operation. The Government fully share the concern that has been expressed about the decline in African elephant populations and will be calling for concerted European support for banning trade in new ivory, at the next council meeting of Environment Ministers on 8 June. The first opportunity to secure listing the African elephant in appendix I of the convention on international trade in endangered species, will be at the next conference of CITES parties in October.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the public bodies(a) abolished and (b) established since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Between 1979 and 1988, 937 non-departmental public bodies were abolished and 417 were established. A list of the individual bodies involved could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Engagements
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

  Government Achievements
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will update her answer of 6 May 1988,Official Report, columns 628–44, on the major achievements of Her Majesty's Government since May 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom is well into its eighth successive year of sustained economic growth, at an annual average rate of over 3 per cent. The seven years to 1988 have seen a combination of strong and steady growth not seen since world war 2. The United Kingdom economy has grown faster than all other major European Community countries during the 1980s. Retail price inflation has averaged 5 per cent. since 1983, compared to an average of over 15 per cent. from March 1974 to April 1979.

  Business investment in 1988 was the highest ever recorded as a percentage of GDP and in the 1980s as a whole it has grown faster than in all other major European countries; only Japan among the Group of Seven major industrialised nations has had faster business investment growth. Over the past seven years, total investment has grown more than twice as fast as consumption. The level of the United Kingdom's net overseas assets is the largest of all the major nations as a percentage of GDP and in 1986 and 1987 our invisibles surplus was the largest in the world.

  Manufacturing productivity has risen at an average annual rate of over 5 per cent. since 1980—faster than in any other major industrialised country, after being at the
  696
  bottom of the league in the previous two decades. Output per hour worked in the whole economy has also grown steadily so that by 1986 (the latest figure available), it was approaching the average for the Group of Seven and was 50 per cent. higher than that of Japan and only 5 per cent. below that of West Germany. Since 1981, the net rate of return on capital employed by British industry has nearly doubled. Excluding the North sea, the rise in profitability has been even greater. In 1987, non-North sea company profitability rose to over 10 per cent. its highest level since 1969, having risen every year since 1981.

  Real take-home pay has risen substantially. For a married man on average earnings with two children, it has increased by about 30 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1988–89. Real personal disposable income is at a record level; in 1988 it was 5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Pensioners have also shared in this growing prosperity. Their average real incomes rose by 23 per cent. between 1979 and 1986.

  The Government have continued to maintain sound public finances. In 1988–89, the Government made a net repayment of public sector debt for the second consecutive year—the first time this has been achieved for forty years —saving over £1½ billion a year in interest payments. Including the £14 billion repayment budgeted for 1989–90, the Government will have repaid roughly a sixth of the total accumulated public debt in three years.

  The Government have increased spending on priority programmes while reducing public expenditure as a proportion of GDP. In 1988–89, it was less than 40 per cent. of GDP for the first time in over 20 years. This has been made possible by continued improvements in efficiency in Government services, together with a rigorous reassessment of expenditure priorities.

  The Government have made great advances since the introduction of the financial management initiative in 1982 towards the goal of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Civil Service. All Departments now have arrangements for delegating clear budgets and responsibilities down the management chain, and the flexible pay arrangements now in force in the Civil Service will enable Departments to make further improvements in the use of their human resources. The central instructions on personnel management in the Civil Service are being reviewed with a view to removing unnecessary controls on the discretion of managers in Departments wherever possible.

  In 1988, the next steps initiative was launched. This involves setting up, to the greatest extent practicable, discrete management units to perform the executive functions of Government. These agencies will have clearer objectives, greater responsibility and the right tools for the job. The aim is greater value for money for the taxpayer, increased job satisfaction for staff and a better quality of service for the public. So far, five agencies have been established, and well over 30 candidates identified, covering about a third of the Civil Service and including virtually all the operational tasks of the Department of Social Security.

  The Government have pursued a substantial programme of tax reform. The aim has been to create a climate in which businesses can thrive and individual initiative and risk-taking are rewarded. The basic rate of income tax has been reduced from 33 to 25 per cent., and the main personal allowances are fully 25 per cent higher in real terms than in 1978–79. Nine higher rates of income

  697
  tax on earned income running up to 83 per cent. have been replaced by a single higher rate of 40 per cent. A new system of independent taxation for husbands and wives will apply in 1990.

  Business 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. Seventeen rates of capital transfer tax running up to 75 per cent. have been replaced by a single rate of 40 per cent. on inheritance; the rates of tax on capital gains have been aligned with those on income and the taxation of purely inflationary capital gains has been ended. The taxation of life assurance will be reformed from 1990. Five major taxes and a number of unjustified tax breaks have been abolished.

  Since 1979, the Government have privatised 19 major companies and a number of other enterprises. As a result of this policy and of tax reliefs designed to encourage shareholding, the number of individual shareholders in the United Kingdom, at one in five of the adult population, has trebled since 1979. Nearly 45 per cent. of the state-owned industrial sector which the Government inherited in 1979 has been returned to private enterprise. The privatisation programme is set to continue; legislation is proceeding for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry and the water industry in England and Wales, and the Government have already announced their intention to privatise British Coal in the next Parliament.

  The Government have introduced a large number of measures to improve the operation of markets. Pay, price and dividend controls have been abolished, together with controls on foreign exchange, bank lending, hire purchase and new issues, and restrictions on industrial and office development. Incentives have been increased by reductions in tax rates and by the reform of national insurance contributions. The state retirement pensioners' earnings rule will be abolished from October 1989.

  Employment in the United Kingdom has risen by almost 3 million since March 1983, to the highest level ever. Unemployment throughout the United Kingdom has fallen over 33 consecutive months by over 1·25 million from its July 1986 peak, which is the longest and largest continuous fall since the second world war. The unemployment rate is now well below the European Community average. It has fallen in all regions of the country, with the biggest falls having occurred in the west midlands and Wales. The number of long-term unemployed (ie, those unemployed for more than a year) in the United Kingdom fell by a record half a million in the two years to January 1989. Unemployment among the under-25s has also been falling very sharply, and is now much lower than in most other European Community countries.

  Changes in employment legislation and measures to assist labour mobility have improved the operation of the labour market. Many restrictions on the employment of women have been lifted.

  The Government's policies have helped the small firms sector to grow rapidly and to make a substantial contribution to employment and wealth creation. Between 1982 and 1984, about 1 million jobs were created by self employment and by firms employing fewer than 20 employees. Between 1980 and 1986, the number of small firms grew by around 500 per week. In 1987, this figure increased to nearly 900 per week. Self-employment has
  698
  increased by more than 50 per cent. since 1979 to 3 million as of June 1988. The number of self-employed women has more than doubled in the same period.

  The Government's small firms service continues to provide professional advice and support to small firms. The enterprise allowance scheme has helped some 430,000 people in Great Britain to set up in business on their own. In addition, the Government have helped to create a network of 400 local enterprise agencies throughout the United Kingdom to encourage the development of small firms.

  The employment service has continued to build on the opportunities for delivering practical and positive help to get unemployed people back to work. In the year to March 1989, the employment service placed 1·9 million people into jobs, of whom 1·5 million had been unemployed. In the same period, some 2·2 million personal interviews were carried out under restart, almost 90 per cent. of them resulting in an offer of positive help from the range of opportunities available, including job clubs and employment training. New client advisers have been introduced into all full-time unemployment benefit offices and offer positive help to the newly unemployed to get them back into jobs as quickly as possible. The employment service has continued to treat as a priority the need to ensure that benefits are properly paid to those who are entitled to them and not to others.

  The Government have revolutionised vocational education and training for young people through the technical and vocational education initiative and two-year youth training scheme. TVEI is now a national scheme covering all education authorities. Over 2 million young people have had vocational training under YTS, and a wide range of courses leading towards a vocational qualification is available to all 16 and 17-year-old school leavers. All young people not going into a job or staying in full time education are guaranteed a place on YTS until their 18th birthday.

  The Government have successfully introduced employment training, the major new programme for longer-term unemployed people. Over 180,000 people are already training on the programme after just eight months of the programme's operation. The Government have guaranteed the offer of a place on employment training or on the enterprise allowance scheme or in a job club to all those aged between 18 and 24 who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months and also aim to provide a place on employment training for those over 24 who have been unemployed for two years or more.

  The Government launched a new service—known as business growth training—last month which will help companies to use training more effectively to improve their performance and their profits. The Government are setting up a network of training and enterprise councils. TECs will contract with Government to plan and deliver training and promote and support the development of small businesses and self-employment within their areas. A national training task force has been set up to assist the Secretary of State for Employment to develop the TECs and to promote greater investment by employers in the skills of the workforce.

  Legislation has been passed to protect members against abuses of trade union power, to extend their rights to influence the affairs of their unions, and to restore the balance in industrial relations between managements and unions. In particular, secondary action and secondary

  699
  picketing have been made unlawful, all statutory support for the closed shop has been removed, and unions have been required to hold ballots before strike action.

  The European Community's objective of completing the single market by the end of 1992 has the Government's strong support. Good progress has been made with around 275 single market measures agreed since 1985. To ensure that all businesses in every part of the country are fully prepared to take advantage of the opportunities the single market will bring, the Government launched a major campaign in 1988. As a result, over 90 per cent. of business men are now aware of the significance of 1992 and around 50 per cent. of British business is already taking action or considering steps to prepare for the single market.

  The Government have launched the enterprise initiative, with the objective of helping business to acquire the skills and information they need to compete effectively. Since the launch of the initiative in January 1988, over 25,000 applications have been received by DTI for consultancy assistance, with demand spread throughout Britain.

  The Government have also launched the export initiative which is aimed at improving the quality and delivery of export services through closer partnership with the private sector, with particular emphasis on helping small and medium-sized firms to obtain expert professional advice on exporting.

  The balance of regional policy has been changed so that the Government's enterprise policies are properly reflected in the regions. The Government have encouraged greater competition throughout the economy.

  The emphasis of the Government's financial support for industry has shifted to industrial innovation. Support has been concentrated on collaborative research programmes, including the LINK scheme which brings together academic and industrial researchers, and the EUREKA initiative for collaborative research in Europe. Thirteen LINK programmes have been announced.

  The Financial Services Act established a statutory framework for self-regulation of the financial services industry in the interests of investor protection, under the Securities and Investments Board and a number of self-regulatory organisations. The operation of the Act has been kept under review and the Government are taking steps to make further improvements in the self-regulatory regime following recent consultations.

  The Government have been active to strengthen safeguards against fraud and to ensure that the probity of our financial institutions is maintained without undermining their competitiveness. The Companies Acts 1980 and 1981 strengthened the powers of investigation and the court's powers to disqualify directors for misconduct; and made insider dealing a criminal offence.

  The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which will come into force later this year, provides a major and comprehensive reform of intellectual property rights. It takes into account the immense technological changes since the 1956 Copyright Act which it will supersede. It will introduce important new rights, such as design right, and provide the appropriate balance between the protection of intellectual property and the needs of those who use the products of creativity.

  The Government have responded positively to new developments in radio technology by licensing companies to provide major new services such as cellular radio, which has accumulated over half a million subscribers in the last
  700
  four years. More recently, the Government have agreed to licence consortia to operate the telepoint public cordless telephone services.

  The Government have continued to work to lift the burdens placed on business by regulations and bureaucracy. A third White Paper on deregulation, "Releasing Enterprise" which was published last year recorded some 120 further achievements in 1987–88 and made some 80 proposals for further action, which are being followed up.

  The Government strongly supported the launch of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, which took place in 1986 during the United Kingdom presidency. This year it contributed to the successful completion of the round's mid-term review.

  The Government have stepped up their attack on urban decay and have given priority to ensuring that inner city residents benefit from growing national prosperity.

  We have established 10 urban development corporations in England and one in Wales, which are succeeding in enlisting massive private sector resources in urban regeneration.

  The "Action for Cities" initiative, launched in March 1988, brought together a wide range of Government programmes to improve the business environment, encourage further private sector involvement, and improve the quality of life in the inner cities.

  The total Government commitment to the "Action for Cities" programmes, which in 1988–89 was around £3 billion, will reach nearly £3·5 billion in 1989–90. Developments since March 1988 include: meetings have been held for local business men and women in cities around the country to encourage them to become involved in regenerating their areas; 30 school-employer compacts are being set up and a further 10 are planned; 20 city technology colleges are being established; three new inner-city task forces have been announced; city grant has attracted over £100 million of private investment to inner city areas; 14 safer cities projects are being established; a broad range of help is being given to developing better sport, arts and leisure facilities and improving the inner city environment; and major improvements in the infrastructure are taking place.

  Government policies on taxation and licensing helped to make 1988 the best year for drilling activities in the North sea since exploration began in 1964. The Government are holding the 11th offshore licensing round; 125 applications have been received, making this the second most successful round ever. The oil industry's response confirms the recovery of confidence in the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  The Government's policies have also fostered the growth of the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry. In 1988, the total value of orders reported by operators for oil and gas development work was £2·5 billion, 35 per cent. up on 1987.

  Productivity of deep mine coal production is now 85 per cent. higher than it was in 1978–79, and is up by 70 per cent. from 1984 levels. In the week ending 25 March 1989, national output per man shift rose to a new record of 4·62 tonnes.

  The Government's renewable energy research programme has made substantial progress. In 1988, details of the research strategy up to the year 2000 were published in energy paper 55, and measures to encourage the development of renewable energy were included in the Bills for privatising the electricity supply and water industries.
  701
  Domestic gas now costs less in real terms than in 1970, while the price of electricity for domestic consumers has gone down by 12 per cent. in the last five years.

  Since the publication of the White Paper "Privatising Electricity" in February 1988, the Government have introduced legislation to reorganise and privatise the electricity supply industry; it has published the licences by which the industry will be regulated; and it has developed plans for the flotation of the industry in England, Wales and Scotland. Substantial progress has been made in reorganising the industry and the Government intend that the new structure will be ready for vesting in the successor companies once Parliament approves the Electricity Bill.

  Since 1979, productivity per person has increased by over 53 per cent. in agriculture and almost 38 per cent. in the food and drink manufacturing industry. Prices of food to consumers have risen more slowly than the general price level. Exports of food, feed and alcoholic beverages have almost doubled since 1979.

  Reform of the common agricultural policy, to tackle the problems of burgeoning expenditure and surplus production, was significantly advanced by the agreement at the European Council in February 1988 on the application of budgetary discipline to the CAP, notably through the introduction of a legally binding ceiling on CAP market support expenditure, and the introduction or extension of stabilisers in CAP commodity regimes. Stabilisers, which link full levels of support to predetermined quantities of production, and provide for reductions in support if those quantities are exceeded, are intended to act as a disincentive to surplus production and thus to help bring supply and demand into better balance. In 1988–89, stabilisers were triggered in many sectors and are resulting in significant price cuts. The process of CAP reform was pursued in the price fixing settlements in 1988 and 1989, when common prices were generally frozen and intervention was made less attractive. In January 1989, the beef regime was reformed.

  The Government have taken many steps to safeguard the position of United Kingdom farmers. Significant green pound devaluations, which considerably improve the competitiveness of United Kingdom agriculture, and which are agreed steps towards the completion of the internal market, were agreed at each of the last two price settlements. The suckler cow premium and expenditure on hill livestock compensatory allowances have been increased.

  The Government have introduced further schemes designed to achieve a better balance between agricultural production and the environment, to aid farm diversification and alternative land use, and to encourage farming practices that are beneficial to the landscape and to the conservation of wildlife.

  The set-aside theme, introduced in 1988, provides incentives for the reduction of surplus arable production, while keeping the land which has been set aside in good heart.

  The farm woodland scheme is designed to encourage the planting of trees on land previously in agricultural production.

  We have established 19 environmentally sensitive areas in the United Kingdom, where payments are made to encourage environmentally beneficial agricultural practices.

  Since 1979, a considerable shift in the focus of capital grants has taken place; they are now concentrated more on
  702
  investments which prevent pollution by farm operations and which help to conserve the landscape and to protect its flora and fauna. The farm and conservation grant scheme, introduced in February 1989, offers grants of 50 per cent for effluent facilities and also grants for a wide range of conservation activities.

  The sale, supply and use of pesticides has been brought under statutory control to ensure use in relation to operators, consumers and the environment.

  The Government have continued to take action where necessary under the Food Act to safeguard the nation's food supply on the best scientific advice available.

  We operate a comprehensive food monitoring and investigative system under the auspicies of the steering group on food surveillance. We have also set up a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Richmond to make recommendations on the microbiological safety of food.

  In order to ensure that our legislation can meet the challenge of modern food technology, the Government have also engaged in extensive consultation with industry, enforcement and consumer interests as part of a review of existing food legislation, with a view to legislating as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  The United Kingdom has played a full part in negotiating the directives which form part of the Community's single market programme for harmonising food law. These will remove barriers to trade and benefit both consumers and industry.

  In 1979 we set up the Farm Animal Welfare Council which has given us independent and authoritative advice. We have banned veal crates and various mutilations; introduced new legislation on battery hens and on poultry transport and slaughter; and produced on-farm codes for all the major species.

  After protracted and difficult negotiations, the Government secured a European Community common fisheries policy settlement in 1983 on terms very favourable to the United Kingdom. Conservation, control and structural measures have all been strengthened as part of that settlement and subsequently. The Salmon Act 1986 strengthened powers to deal with illegal fishing and made improvements in the conservation and management of salmon.

  Controls to ensure the protection of the marine environment have been strengthened, and substantial reductions have been achieved in the levels of contaminants in material licensed for disposal at sea.

  In the field of transport, the Government have pursued policies designed to ensure that Britain's growing transport needs are met safely, efficiently and with proper respect for the environment.

  British Airways and the British Airports Authority have been privatised. The Government have authorised the development of Stansted as London's third airport, encouraged the development of airport facilities in the regions, improved the management of the main local authority airports by transferring them to companies and banned the noisiest aircraft from operating at British airports. The Government have taken steps, domestically and internationally, to intensify aviation security and to increase air traffic control capacity. The Government have strengthened competition on international air routes by negotiating more liberal bilateral arrangements. The Government have secured agreement to packages of

  703
  liberalisation measures for aviation, shipping and road haulage within the European Community as a first step towards the completion of the internal transport market.

  Local bus services outside London have been deregulated. This has resulted in greater competition between operators, the introduction of new types of bus services, and lower costs and subsidies, as well as an increase in the overall provision of bus mileage. The privatisation of the National Bus Company was completed well ahead of schedule, and about half of its subsidiaries were bought by their own managers or employees.

  British Rail has been given objectives for improving the quality of its services and for increasing its efficiency through reduced subsidy. In 1987–88, passenger revenue was at the highest level since nationalisation, and British Rail expanded its ambitious investment programme to secure improved services, whilst achieving their target for reduction of public subsidy. The Government have commissioned studies of the requirement for new railway lines in London and have backed a major programme of investment by London Underground, including £700 million to upgrade the Central line and £266 million to implement new safety measures in the wake of the King's Cross fire.

  The Government have involved the private sector in the funding of transport projects, for example the Channel tunnel and the Dartford-Thurrock bridge. A recently published Green Paper seeks views on the Government's proposals to facilitate private sector investment in new roads.

  The Government have taken measures to encourage the employment of British seafarers aboard British ships. Numerous measures have also been taken to improve ferry safety following the Zeebrugge disaster. The Government have privatised the British Transport Docks Board and have reformed the marine pilotage system.

  In England, capital investment in trunk roads has increased by 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Some 900 miles of new and improved motorways and other trunk roads have been completed, including 98 new bypasses. The Government have carried out a major review of Britain's trunk road and motorway requirements and have published a White Paper providing for an increase from £5 billion to £12 billion in expenditure on the roads programme. The Government are supporting 360 major local authority road schemes, most of which are aimed at bypassing local communities or relieving them of traffic. The Government's continuing concentration on road and vehicle safety measures has given the United Kingdom the best overall road accident record in the European Community. In 1988, deaths on Britain's roads were the lowest since 1954, despite a fourfold increase in traffic in the same period. The aim is to reduce casualties by one third by the year 2000.

  Government expenditure on social security is now at its highest level ever both in cash and real terms. Spending on social security is up by 33 per cent. in real terms from £16·4 billion in 1978–79 to a planned £51·3 billion, almost £1 billion a week, in 1989–90. Between 1978–79 and 1988–89, spending on long-term sick and disabled people has increased by about £3·5 billion in real terms, a real increase of 90 per cent.; total expenditure on benefits for the elderly has gone up by 24 per cent. in real terms; and the real value of family support has risen by 27 per cent. from £6·7 billion to £8·5 billion.
  704
  Social security is a major service industry. The Government have long been concerned to improve the quality of service. The reform of social security benefits has contributed to this process by introducing a structure of benefits which is easier to understand and to administer. Our massive computerisation programme will deliver benefits more accurately and more quickly. The relocation of some "backroom" work from some London offices will relieve the pressure on those offices and improve the speed and quality of service to the public in London. Plans have been announced for the running of social security operations as an executive agency or agencies, and for a definition of service. In addition, work is considerably advanced on other initiatives including improved training for staff, in-house style for our premises and a revised management structure which gives local managers greater authority to respond flexibly to the needs of their own local public.

  The Government's restructured system of income-related benefits was implemented in 1988 and has enabled us to pursue our policy of targeting help more effectively on those groups most in need. Many low-income families have gained from the introduction of income support, which has proved to be simpler—both to understand and administer—than its predecessor, supplementary benefit. Since its introduction, the Government have been able to use the social fund to provide effective and flexible help, with over 150,000 community care grants to vulnerable people and nearly 900,000 interest-free loans with a combined total expenditure of £166 million in the first year.

  A quarter of a million families are now receiving family credit—the benefit for people in work—with average payments of £25 a week. In the first 12 months alone, spending on family credit was about £400 million, which is twice the amount spent on its predecessor, family income supplement. The simpler housing benefit scheme operates more fairly and treats people alike whether in work or not.

  This year the Government added an extra 50p a week to the child allowances in income support, family credit and housing benefit adding a further £70 million to expenditure over and above the prices uprating in April. This ensured that families receiving these benefits saw a substantial increase in real terms which they would not have experienced had this money been channelled into child benefit. Child benefit goes to all families regardless of income and any increase in it does not benefit families on income support and family credit, as it is offset in their income-related benefit. From this April, the Government are therefore directing about £200 million extra to the greater benefit of some 3 million children in low income families. From October this year, employees' national insurance contributions will be reformed, and the main disincentive effects of the current system will be removed.

  The Government's economic success has enabled pensioners' average incomes to grow by 23 per cent. in real terms over the period 1979 to 1986, and the Government have met their pledge to maintain the real value of the state retirement pension, which is now being paid to one million more pensioners than in 1979, at a cost of over £20 billion this year. The Government have also announced that, from October this year, just under £200 million extra has been set aside for poorer pensioners, through the income support and housing benefit schemes. In all, about 2·6 million pensioners are expected to benefit from this increased expenditure. The abolition of the earnings rule

  705
  for pensioners from 1 October 1989 will give more choice and flexibility for older people who want to carry on working.

  An objective of the Government has been to encourage the spread of occupational and personal pensions, and to give people more choice in how to provide for their retirement. In 1985, the Government gave everyone leaving an employment scheme the right to a fair transfer value to a new employer's scheme or to buy a deferred annuity. The Government also gave members rights to all the information they need to take decisions about their pension. 1988 saw significant changes in the arrangements for pensions: from April 1988, contracting-out of SERPs was made easier and July saw the introduction of the new choice of personal pensions. More than 2 million people have already taken advantage of this opportunity to plan for their retirement by applying for a personal pension.

  In England spending on the Health Service is up by 40 per cent. in real terms, from £6·5 billion in 1978–79 to £21·1 billion now. There are over 12,400 more doctors and dentists and over 53,000 more nurses and midwives. Capital spending has increased from £373 million to more than £1·2 billion. Some 300 health building schemes, each worth over £1 million have been started and completed and 500 further schemes are at various stages of planning, design and construction with 140 due to be completed in the next three years. Over 1·25 million more in-patient cases are now being dealt with each year, making a total of more tham 6·5 million.

  General managers throughout the Health Service are providing energetic and innovative leadership through speedier and more incisive decision making. Health authorities are continuing to improve efficiency and their cost improvement programmes have yielded savings worth over £700 million in the past five years. New cost improvements in 1989–90 are expected to yield around a further £150 million.

  The Government have set up an independent review body to recommend on nurses' pay. All six of the review body's reports, including the 1989 report, have been implemented, since 1979, nurses will have received on average a 44 per cent. real term increase in their pay.

  A number of initiatives have been taken to improve the health and wellbeing of the population. We are the world leaders in introducing a breast cancer screening service and the first country within the European Community to have a comprehensive cervical cancer screening service based on computerised call and recall. Considerable progress has been made on improving the uptake of childhood immunisation and last October, the mumps, measles and rubella programme was announced which marks the most significant change in immunisation policy in the past 20 years. The Government have developed a comprehensive strategy in response to the threat of AIDS and have taken, and will continue to take, all necessary measures to prevent and contain the spread of the virus.

  Waiting lists are now some 8 per cent. lower than in 1979. Districts with waiting list problems have been targeted with Government funding of £86 million in England to tackle waiting list black spots. This funding will allow treatment of some 300,000 more in-patients and day patients and 200,000 out-patients by the end of the current financial year.

  In social services, there have been increases in places in training centres and community homes for mentally
  706
  handicapped people. There are more home help staff, more social work staff, more places in day centres for elderly people, and more places in residential and nursing homes.

  The White Paper "Working For Patients" set out proposals for the most far reaching changes in the history of the NHS. The aim is to build on its record of achievement to provide even better service for patients and to raise the performance of all hospitals and GP practices to that of the best. This will be achieved through the introduction of measures designed to delegate responsibility and to promote patient choice.

  The Government have secured the agreement of the profession's negotiators on the basis for a contract for GPs. This new contract will introduce health promotion and illness prevention as major objectives of service provision and will relate GP's pay more closely to their performances.

  Since 1979, substantial progress has been made in reforming the structure and financial basis of local authorities to make them more accountable and responsive to the needs of their local electorates, and to give better value for money in the provision of local services. The structure of local government in England has been simplified and improved with the abolition of an unnecessary tier of government in Greater London and the metropolitan areas. The Audit Commission for England and Wales was established in 1983 and has already made great progress in identifying opportunities for improving value for money in local government, some of which are beginning to show results. Legislation on competition is ensuring that local authorities in Great Britain subject the provision of an increasing range of their services to the discipline of competitive tendering.

  The Widdicombe committee on the conduct of local authority business identified a number of measures needed to improve local authority procedures and avoid abuses, and the Government are now legislating to implement many of the key recommendations. Measures on local government finance have restrained the growth of local authority expenditure in Great Britain, particularly in some of the more extravagant high-spending authorities. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 makes provision for the abolition of domestic rates in England and Wales and their replacement by a fairer and more broadly based community charge from 1 April 1990. The same Act includes provisions to remedy the uneven burden of non-domestic rates on businesses through the establishment of a nationally determined uniform business rate.

  In housing, the Government introduced the first statutory charter of rights for public sector tenants including the right to buy. Since then, over 1 million tenants in Great Britain have bought their homes. The stock of owner occupied dwellings in Britain has increased by 3 million; more people own their homes than ever before; and 65 per cent. of all dwellings are owner-occupied. There has been a net increase in the stock as a whole of about 1·8 million, more than enough to keep pace with the growth in the number of households over the period.

  The Government's estate action programme has helped local authorities with over 200 schemes on rundown council estates in England. A scheme of assistance has been introduced for owners of defective houses previously in the public sector throughout Great Britain, and good

  707
  progress has been made. Measures have been introduced to strengthen the rights of leaseholders living in private blocks of flats.

  The Housing Act 1988 aims to broaden the choice open to tenants and to encourage more private investment in housing in England and Wales; it deregulates rents in the independent rented sector; provides the basis for an expansion of the housing association movement; allows for the establishment of housing action trusts in some of the most rundown areas of local authority housing; and provides all secure local authority tenants with the opportunity to transfer to new landlords approved by the Housing Corporation.

  The Local Government and Housing Bill now before Parliament maintains this progress: it introduces a new capital finance system permitting allocations to local authorities to be better tailored to need, a new housing subsidy system designed to impose better financial discipline, and provisions for targeting renovation grants on housing most in need of improvement and people most in need of assistance.

  The Government have created a unified inspectorate of pollution for England and Wales with a remit to develop an integrated approach to pollution control. Following a successful initiative in Europe to bring to an end the addition of lead to petrol, the maximum lead content of petrol has been cut by 60 per cent., and a reduction in duty has made unleaded petrol some 10p a gallon cheaper than leaded four-star. Unleaded petrol is now available at over 7,700 sites, and use of the fuel doubled last month to 14 per cent. Following the successful London conference on the protection of the ozone layer, the signatories of the Montreal protocol to the Vienna convention have agreed to phase out the production and consumption of the CFCs controlled by the protocol as soon as possible, and not later than 2000.

  The Government have taken steps to reduce the pollution of our rivers, estuaries and beaches. The Water Bill now before Parliament will establish a National Rivers Authority, strengthen the legal framework for ensuring water quality standards and establish a system of price regulation and consumer protection for the water industry. In 1987, the United Kingdom chaired the North sea conference, which produced an important package of measures to safeguard and enhance the quality of the North sea. We are applying the measures agreed to all our seas.

  The Government have made substantial progress in securing the future of the natural heritage. In Great Britain over 5,000 sites of special scientific interest have been notified or renotified as part of the implementation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; this process is now 85 per cent complete. In addition, 33 special protection areas have been designated throughout the United Kingdom under the European birds directive, and 40 wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention.

  The Government have been active in improving the care and management of our national heritage. We have established two powerful new forces for conservation—the National Heritage Memorial Fund in 1980 and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (English Heritage) in 1984. A major resurvey of listed buildings in England is virtually complete.

  The Government have taken a wide range of steps to simplify and improve the planning system and to speed up its operation, while protecting and enhancing the
  708
  environment in town and country. The area of approved green belt in England has more then doubled since 1979; the annual acreage of agricultural land taken for development in England and Wales in the 1980s is less than one third of the levels seen in the 1960s and early 1970s; and nearly one half of land for new housing development in England is either redeveloped land or vacant land within urban areas.

  After a period of stagnation, the construction industry has enjoyed a seven year period of sustained growth. In 1988, output—at £40 billion in cash terms—was its highest ever.

  The Government have maintained central support for arts activities, and have introduced a number of measures to encourage greater self-reliance among arts institutions. There has been a significant upsurge in business sponsorship—the Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme has brought nearly £25 million of new money into the arts in five years. Major progress has been made with the building of the new British Library at St. Pancras and there have been major expansion schemes at some national museums and galleries, including the Clore gallery at the Tate, the new Tate gallery in Liverpool, the national gallery's Sainsbury wing, the theatre museum at the V and A, and the redevelopment of the imperial war museum.

  The Government have continued their policies to improve all aspects of the education system in England and Wales; a new 16-plus examination system, the GCSE, has been introduced, as have the new AS-levels which will broaden studies for 16 to 18-year-olds. The technical and vocational education initiative is augmenting practical elements in the 14 to 18 curriculum. In higher education, record numbers of students were admitted last year and plans are being taken forward to continue the shift towards science and engineering and other key subjects for our continuing economic success. The Education Reform Act 1988 sets a new course for the future. The national curriculum is being introduced from this September; assessment and testing are being taken forward; more open enrolment and new types of school will widen the choice of schools open to parents; local management of schools and colleges is being introduced; the new polytechnic and colleges sector of high education has been established; university funding arrangements have been reformed.

  The Government have increased support to the science base in response to the recommendations from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. There has been a parallel withdrawal of funds from 'near-market" research, which is judged to be properly the responsibility of industry.

  Since May 1979, the Government have increased the number of police officers in England and Wales by nearly 14,000 to over 125,000 and the number of civilians supporting the police by about 8,000 to over 42,500. Expenditure has been increased by about 55 per cent. in real terms over the same period, and the Government continue to work closely with the service to ensure that these resources are used to the best possible effect. The powers of the police to deal with public disorder have been strengthened. Over 66,000 neighbourhood watch schemes are now in operation in Great Britain. Fourteen cities are involved in the safer cities programme to reduce crime and the fear of crime. The new national crime prevention programme organisation Crime Concern has been

  709
  established and is working with the police, other public agencies and private business to develop and encourage crime prevention activity. An independent Crown prosecution service is now in operation throughout England and Wales. Twenty-four senior and 34 junior attendance centres have been opened.

  The largest prison building programme this century is under way. Out of a total of 28 new prisons planned for England and Wales, eight are already open and the remainder are at various stages of planning and construction. A major programme of refurbishment and modernisation is in progress. New staff working practices have been introduced. The number of uniformed prison officers in England and Wales has been increased by 45 per cent. and the ratio of staff to inmates improved.

  Measures have been taken to ensure that the terms of imprisonment served by violent offenders fully reflect society's abhorrence of their crimes. Government assistance to the victims' support movement has been greatly expanded: £11 million will be provided over the next three financial years to help local schemes. The Government have continued to develop an overall strategy for countering drug misuse and illicit trafficking. The national drugs intelligence unit has been created and strengthened. Seventeen drugs wings, with an additional 229 officers to man them, have been added to the regional crime squads in England and Wales to target major drug traffickers. The Video Recordings Act has brought "video nasties" under control.

  Legislation has also been put through for data protection; to provide more rigorous control of animal experimentation; to provide a framework for the development of broadcasting by satellite and cable television (including the establishment of the Welsh fourth channel); to set out a new framework for police powers, for providing safeguards for the citizen and for handling complaints against the police; to control the possession and sale of alcohol in connection with football matches; to provide for the establishment of the serious fraud office, now in operation, and to make other improvements in the investigation, prosecution and trial of fraud offences; to provide comprehensive new powers to investigate, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking, where the Government are working for international agreements to make such powers more generally effective; to improve controls on the possession of firearms and shotguns; to remove outdated restrictions in liquor licensing law; to enable the United Kingdom to participate more effectively in the international fight against crime, including a major reform of extradition law; to make provision for courts to order the confiscation of the proceeds of profitable crime; to provide for unduly lenient sentences to be reviewed; to create a statutory right for the victims of crime to receive compensation; to tighten the law on possession of knives and to ban the sale of offensive weapons which have no legitimate use; to strengthen the jury system; to reform the law on official secrets by replacing section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 with provisions protecting just six classes of official information; to make provision for the interception of communications, sent by means of post or by means of public telecommunications systems, with the appointment of a commissioner and provision for complaints to an independent tribunal; and to put the Security Service on a statutory basis with the appointment of a commissioner and provision for complaints to an independent tribunal.
  710
  The Government have played a major role in developing international co-operation in the fight against terrorism and have strengthened police powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We continue our policy of fair but firm immigration control. The Immigration Act 1988 corrected a number of weaknesses in the existing legislation.

  Proposals for new broadcasting legislation designed to promote greater choice and competition without detriment to programme standards and quality have recently been published in the White Paper "Broadcasting in the 1990s".

  The Government have continued the reform of family law; have legislated to remove the legal disadvantages of children born outside marriage; and have brought schemes into effect to combat the evils of child abduction both within the United Kingdom and throughout the world. The Government have introduced the Children Bill which provides a single, coherent code covering the care and upbringing of children. It will enable steps to be taken towards a single integrated jurisdiction over all types of children's cases and will facilitate procedural reforms.

  The Government have embarked on a programme of reforms in the administration of civil justice in England and Wales which will improve access to justice for the public by speeding up, simplifying and reducing the cost of civil proceedings.

  The Legal Aid Act 1988 established a board to administer the legal aid scheme and to ensure that it operates as efficiently and effectively as possible. The Legal Aid Board assumed these functions on 1 April 1989.

  The Government have simplified conveyancing, extended the areas in which titles have to be registered, and have continued the major programme of the simplification and consolidation of our statute law.

  A substantial increase in resources has enabled the capability of the armed forces to be strengthened. The Government played their full part in implementing the NATO twin-track decision to modernise intermediate-range nuclear weapons while seeking to achieve an arms control agreement, and this policy has been vindicated by the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty. Increased efficiency is being pursued by the continuing transfer of resources from the support areas to the front line, and by introducing increased competition in defence contracts and promoting collaboration with our international partners. Major reorganisation of the headquarters structure of the Ministry of Defence has been introduced.

  The Government have maintained Britain's firm commitment to national defence and the NATO Alliance. At the same time, the Government have worked determinedly for a more stable security relationship between East and West, seeking verifiable reductions in nuclear and conventional weapons and a global ban on chemical weapons. The Government have been active in building up, and setting priorities for, an East-West dialogue on arms control.

  The Government played a leading role in the Stockholm conference on European arms control which was successfully concluded in September 1986, and give full support to our United States allies in their successful negotiations with the USSR over INF. British Ministers and representatives have placed an active part in the preparation and conduct of the two sets of talks recently started in Vienna.
  711
  The Government have worked consistently to strengthen the Western European Union as part of their effort to promote closer European defence co-operation. Britain presided over the accession to the organisation last year of Spain and Portugal.

  The Government have also consistently sought greater East-West co-operation in the settlement of regional conflicts. They maintained steady pressure for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. They are now pursuing an active dialogue with the Soviet Union on other regional issues.

  The Government have worked vigorously to ensure that human rights are fully respected in Eastern Europe. The Government played an active part in the successful conclusion to the Vienna meeting of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, which closed in January with substantive new agreements on human rights. The Government have also encouraged steps towards economic and political reform in the eastern countries.

  Within the European Community, the Government reached agreement at Fontainebleu in 1984 that the United Kingdom should pay a fairer share of the EC budget. In the United Kingdom presidency of 1986, and at the Brussels European Council in February 1988, the Government secured major reforms of the common agricultural policy, including a binding ceiling on agricultural spending and an automatic cost-cutting regime for all commodities.

  The Government have helped to establish the completion of the single European market by 1992 as the Community's top priority. They have worked consistently to ensure that this market will be as free as possible from internal barriers and regulation and will be open to the outside world, in order to encourage competition, enterprise and efficiency and to increase commercial opportunities for British industry. The Government have championed liberalising measures in Europe, such as freer movement consistent with national security; mutual recognition of professional qualifications; abolition of exchange controls; and cheaper air fares. In the GATT and other international economic forums, the Government have worked to strengthen the open world economic system, including through the current Uruguay round.

  The Government supported the entry of Greece, Spain and Portugal into the Community, in order to strengthen their democracy and prosperity, and to reinforce NATO. The Government have actively promoted close EC political co-operation, including the initiative for the provisions in the Single European Act, which put this co-operation on a treaty basis for the first time.

  Rhodesia was brought to legal independence as the Republic of Zimbawe in 1980. The Government resolutely upheld and continue to defend the right of the Falkland islanders to live in peace under a Government of their own choosing. An agreement with China about the future of Hong Kong was ratified in 1985 and good progress has since been made with its implementation. The Gibraltar border has been reopened and the Government have established a negotiating framework with Spain aimed at overcoming differences over the rock.

  The Government have maintained their commitment to the Commonwealth. With our Commonwealth and European partners, the Government have worked towards ending apartheid in South Africa by peaceful means. We
  712
  have extended significant assistance to black communities within South Africa. The Government have also worked to strengthen the security and stability of South Africa's neighbours through the provision of substantial development assistance and military training.

  At the United Nations and elsewhere, the Government have supported the rule of international law, peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for human rights. Through the Armilla patrol, Britain has fulfilled its long-standing commitment to protect merchant shipping in the Gulf. As one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Britain made a significant contribution to the initiation and adoption of Resolution 598 on the Iran/Iraq conflict and the subsequent ceasefire last year. The Government have been active in developing closer co-operation between the Five on this and other issues, such as Namibia. The Government have supported the successful United States-led negotiations on Namibia's future; and the role of the United Nations in bringing the territory peacefully to independence. The Government have also worked for financial and administrative reform in the United Nations.

  The Government have promoted international co-operation to combat terrorism and drug-trafficking. With the World Health Organisation, the Government organised the 1988 London summit of Ministers of Health on programmes for AIDS prevention. The Government have also been in the forefront of international efforts to protect the environment. With the United Nations environment programme, the Government organised the recent London international conference on saving the ozone layer.

  The Government have maintained a substantial and effective aid programme, totalling over £12·5 billion in the period 1979–88. While the bulk of our bilateral aid has been focused on the poorest countries, the Government have provided long-term help to nearly 130 developing countries. The Government have responded swifly and generously to appeals for emergency aid to sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere and have taken the lead in promoting measures to relieve sub-Saharan African countries of their official debts.

  The White Paper "Scottish Enterprise" put forward proposals to integrate the functions of the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency into a single body, Scottish Enterprise, and to provide training and to promote enterprise through a network of employer-led local agencies responding directly to local needs.

  Unemployment in Scotland has fallen in 24 of the past 25 months and by 90,000 since January 1987. Manufacturing productivity in Scotland increased by 5·4 per cent. per annum between 1979 and 1989. Between June 1983 and June 1988 the civilian workforce in employment increased by 106,000; and in 1988 alone the increase was 66,000. The number of self-employed increased by 66,000 between June 1981 and June 1988, compared with virtually no change in the three decades to 1981.

  In 1988, there was a net growth of over 3,400 in company registrations in Scotland. Between 1 January 1980 and 1 January 1988, the number of companies registered in Scotland increased by some 20,000, or by over a half. Between 1979 and 1989, the output of the Scottish electronics industry increased by a factor of 3·7.

  Inward investment planned by companies since the inception of the Government's Locate in Scotland

  713
  programme totals some £3 billion and is associated with the intended creation or safeguarding of 60,000 jobs; the final employment outcome is, on past experience, likely to be about two thirds of the planned level.

  Expenditure by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in 1988–89 was £42 million, 5·5 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979–80. The success of the Highlands and Islands Development Board is indicated by an estimated 1 per cent. increase in the area's population since 1981. The Government have successfully maintained the area's eligibility for support from European Community structured funds and have obtained agreement to a programme of European Community support of £73 million to assist development of the area's infrastructure.

  1988–89 saw the largest ever single project in a Scottish new town come on stream, with investment of over £200 million by Kymmene Stromberg in the new Caledonian paper mill in Irvine. Take-up of industrial space in all five towns was at an all-time high and private sector investment in both industry and housing continued to rise to record new levels.

  Owner-occupation among Scots has increased significantly, from 35 per cent. to over 44 per cent. A major contribution to this increase has been the 150,000 tenants who have bought their homes from the public sector landlord under the right to buy legislation introduced in 1980, or through voluntary sales. The Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 introduced a statutory right for public sector tenants to transfer to new landlords approved by Scottish Homes.

  The Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 has established a new housing development agency, Scottish Homes. The new agency will play a key role in revitalising Scotland's housing and will promote freedom of choice for tenants. The volume of applications for home improvement and repairs grants has increased substantially. The Government have enabled the number of houses let by housing associations in Scotland to increase sixfold since 1979.

  The Government have achieved their objective, on the timetable they originally set, of abolishing domestic rates in Scotland with effect from 1 April this year, and replacing them with a new community charge.

  Measures have been taken to speed up the town and country planning system in Scotland to allow the establishment of simplified planning zones and to meet the particular planning requirements of high technology industries, small businesses, private house builders and major retail development. The protection of the landscape and wildlife habitats has been strengthened. Major initiatives have been taken to reform and simplify the building control system to reduce restrictions while maintaining public safeguards. Access for disabled persons to public buildings has been greatly improved by reforms to building regulations.

  The deregulation of local bus services in Scotland has been achieved with service levels maintained overall and improvements in many areas. The Government have stimulated innovation through competition while cutting subsidies. We have also introduced legislation to privatise the Scottish Bus Group. Since 1979, over £800 million has been invested in motorways and trunk roads in Scotland. Thirty bypasses, relieving communities of through traffic, have been opened.
  714
  Major reforms have been introduced to the education system in Scotland. The Education (Scotland) Act 1981 gave parents the right to choose their children's school, and since then over 140,000 placing requests have been made, with over 93 per cent. of them being successful. That Act also introduced the assisted places scheme to widen educational opportunity and parental choice; 2,660 children benefited from the scheme in 1988–89, and it is now being extended to assist up to 3,000 pupils. The School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 gave parents in Scotland the opportunity for the first time to become involved in running their children's schools. By the end of October this year, each school in Scotland will have its own board, with a majority of parent members.

  The school examination system is being modernised, with the introduction of standard grade and the associated revision of the post-16 examinations. The technical and vocational education initiative is being extended throughout Scotland. Measures are being taken to revise the school curriculum for ages 5–14, to improve the assessment of pupils, including nationally standardised testing in key elements of English and mathematics at ages eight and 12, and to better inform parents of their children's progress. The Self-Governing Schools, etc. (Scotland) Bill, now before Parliament, will enable parents in Scotland to seek self-governing status for schools outside local authority control, and so will expand the educational choice available and improve the standards of educational provision for all. The Bill also provides for the establishment of technology academies, with private sector sponsorship.

  The participation rates of young people in higher education has reached the highest ever levels. Radical changes in further education have increased the take-up of vocational training at all levels. The grant-aided higher education colleges have been reconstituted to give them greater freedom and incentives to earn external income and to increase student numbers. The Government-backed Scottish wider access programme has been launched to encourage collaboration between educational institutions to widen access to higher education, and provision has been made for a statutory Scottish committee of the Universities Funding Council.

  Police manpower in Scotland has increased, and, in order to release police officers for operational duties, the Government are encouraging civilianisation of posts wherever possible. Increased attention has been devoted to crime prevention.

  The Government have intensified the campaign against drug misuse in Scotland. Drug wings have been established in the Scottish crime squad and all eight Scottish police forces now have a specialised drug squad or unit. Since 1979, a total of 60 major hospital developments have been completed in Scotland, providing 6,747 beds and 521 day places. A further 31 schemes are in planning, under construction or being commissioned which will provide a further 3,452 beds. In addition to the public education campaigns on AIDS, the Government have this year made over £12 million available to health boards throughout Scotland in recognition of the extra burdens which AIDS places upon them, including funding for three special AIDS units in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee. The Government have supported several projects for research on HIV infection and AIDS and have provided funding

  715
  for studies into the incidence of AIDS in Scotland. In addition, the Government encourage and support voluntary sector initiatives in the AIDS field in Scotland.

  Since 1987, £13 million has been allocated to health boards in Scotland for special action to reduce the number of people waiting for treatment and the time they have to wait. In the 18 months to September 1988, the number of people on waiting lists in Scotland fell by around 10 per cent.

  With the publication in November 1988 of the SHARPEN report (Scottish health authorities review of priorities for the eighties and nineties) and the booklet "The Scottish Health Service", priorities have been set for the Health Service in Scotland which emphasise the care of the elderly with mental disability; community care of the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly; preventive medicine and the younger physically disabled.

  Competitive tendering of ancillary services in the NHS in Scotland is expected to release £25 million over the next three to four years from the contracts so far awarded. These savings will be reinvested in direct patient care.

  The health capital budget in Scotland is up by one third this year alone, and a substantial part of this increase is due to the incentive which allows health boards to keep all the proceeds of the sale of redundant buildings and land. This year, hospital building will benefit by £25 million from these receipts, more than three times the estimate made before the incentive was introduced. This money will be ploughed back into the Health Service to provide buildings and equipment for patient care.

  Special assistance is being made available to farmers in the north of Scotland to help restore floodbanks damaged in the exceptional floods earlier this year.

  The Government's commitment to the outlying areas of Scotland is demonstrated by the Western Isles integrated development programme which ended its five-year span in 1987 and provided £56 million to improve socioeconomic conditions in the area, and by the five-year agricultural development programme for the other Scottish islands which started in 1988. This programme provides £38 million to increase the efficiency of agricultural businesses without adding to overall agricultural production.

  Five environmentally sensitive areas have been designated in Scotland, under which farmers can receive payments for agreeing to farm in a conservation-friendly way. These areas are in different parts of the country and include the Machair ESA in the crofting area of Scotland. The Government remain fully committed to the expansion of forestry and introduced two new grant schemes—the woodland grant scheme and the farm woodland scheme—in 1988.

  The Government's commitment to promote art and culture in Scotland has resulted in major new galleries for the Burrell collection in Glasgow and for modern art in Edinburgh. A new home for the Royal Scottish academy of music and drama was opened in 1988 and the first phase of a new building for the national library of Scotland in Edinburgh will be opened later this year; the second phase will be completed in 1994.

  The Government have done more than any previous Administration to secure the future of the Gaelic language. A new specific grants scheme for Gaelic education, designed to improve the quality of Gaelic teaching and curriculum in schools, was introduced in 1986. Grants under the scheme amount to £0·85 million in the current
  716
  year. In addition, substantially increased resources have been allocated to a range of organisations providing support for Gaelic language and culture.

  In Northern Ireland, the Government have pursued the policy of combating terrorism, within the rule of law, by the most effective means available. In the implementation of this policy, the security forces have conducted themselves with great courage and skill; many terrorists have been apprehended, much material has been recovered, and a large number of terrorist operations have been frustrated, which would otherwise have added to the tragic toll of death and suffering.

  The Government have continued to implement the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and have used its machinery further to improve security co-operation.

  The Government's efforts to find an agreed basis on which greater responsibility can be devolved to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland have continued.

  A key objective of Government policy is to regenerate the private sector in Northern Ireland and release the region's potential for economic growth. To this end, the industrial development organisations in Northern Ireland have promoted over 75,000 jobs, while the youth training programme has provided opportunities for an estimated 84,300 entrants with some 32,000 man years of work provided by the action for community employment scheme. At any time, some 29,000 persons are benefiting from a wide range of employment and training resources. Legislation has been introduced to secure equality of opportunity in employment.

  Belfast city centre has been revitalised both in terms of housing and commerce. Housing conditions have shown improvement, with a considerable reduction in the level of unfitness and a significant increase in the level of owner occupation.

  In July 1988, the Government launched the "making Belfast work" programme designed to address the social, economic and environmental issues in the most disadvantaged area of Belfast. In addition to substantial mainstream programmes, a further £65 million has been made available in the period 1988–89 to 1991–92.

  Proposals have been developed, with a view to early implementation, for the reform of the educational system to improve educational standards and for the provision of new opportunities and incentives for existing schools seeking to promote integrated education.

  Substantial programmes have been maintained in Northern Ireland for agriculture, health and personal social services, environmental services and social security.

  Since the establishment of WlNvest in 1983, Wales has secured some 290 inward investment projects from overseas companies promising some 36,000 new or safeguarded jobs and involving almost £2 billion of capital investment. Notable successes include Ford's £700 million investment at Bridgend and Swansea and Bosch's £100 million project at Miskin.

  Wales, with 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, achieved, in terms of related new jobs, 20 per cent. of all inward investment into the United Kingdom in 1987 and 22 per cent. in 1988. This compares with 6 per cent. in 1979.

  Since 1979, the Government have committed nearly £250 million—at today's prices—to the land reclamation programme in Wales, one of the largest and most

  717
  sustained programmes in Europe, and the Welsh Development Agency has constructed over 11·5 million sq ft of factory space, with a job potential of about 35,000.

  The success of the Development Board for Rural Wales is indicated by an estimated 4·5 per cent. increase in the population of the area covered by the Board between 1979 and 1987.

  Three enterprise zones set up by the Government are located in Wales: at Swansea, Delyn and the Milford Haven waterway. Over 8,500 people are currently employed in these zones, of whom 3,600 are in new jobs.

  The Government have supported the rapid spread of local enterprise agencies in Wales, of which there are now 24. Such agencies have had £9·7 million of central Government assistance and they estimate that they have helped to create over 20,000 jobs.

  Seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales has fallen in each of the last 34 consecutive months to a total in April 1989 of 105,000—a fall of 66,900 or 5·3 percentage points from 14·1 per cent. to 8·8 per cent.

  The number of self-employed in Wales is currently 148,000—a substantial increase on the 1981 figure.

  Since their introduction in 1982, urban development grants of around £37 million have been awarded to 75 projects throughout Wales. These will bring forward a total private sector investment of nearly £173 million. The scheme has now been superseded by a simplified grant mechanism, urban investment grant, which was introduced on 1 April 1989. To date, 180 inquiries have been received and grants of just over £1 million have been awarded on two projects.

  As part of the Government's policy for inner cities, the Cardiff Bay development corporation was established in 1987 to regenerate the urban areas of south Cardiff. The corporation has produced a comprehensive regeneration strategy for its area; acquired some 300 acres of land; completed site investigations for major land reclamation schemes; and completed several environmental and community projects. In 1989–90, some £22 million will be made available to the corporation.

  In June 1988, the Government launched a three-year programme of action designed to improve economic, environmental and social conditions in the south Wales valleys. Expenditure on key activities involving the promotion of investment, the creation of jobs and environmental improvement in the valleys is expected to total some £500 million over the life of the programme, and to help stimulate private sector investment of around £1 billion. In the first seven months of the programme unemployment in the valleys has fallen faster than elsewhere in Wales, by over 5,000 since the programme was launched. Factory lettings by the Welsh Development Agency in the valleys have been at record levels since the valleys programme was announced, running at two new lettings a week in the first nine month of 1988–89.

  The WDA has made great progress in its factory building programme—some 492,500 sq ft of factory space was started in 1988–89, against a target of 450,000 sq ft. The WDA's derelict land clearance programme is well under way and will lead to the clearance of some 2,500 acres over the life of the valleys programme. 3Is (Investors in Industry) now expects to provide over £5 million of venture capital for valleys investments in 1988–89 compared with the earlier forecast of £2·5 million. Welsh Office offers of regional selective assistance and regional development grant made up to the middle of January 1989
  718
  have covered projects involving 7,500 new jobs and private investment of £180 million. 21 projects have been supported by the Welsh Development Agency under its valleys small loan scheme.

  In addition, the valleys enterprise loan scheme has funded 26 projects at a total cost of £315,500, and the community enterprise scheme has funded 11 projects amounting to £70,000.

  Urban programme allocations totalling nearly £18 million for 1989–90 have been directed to the valleys area —over 65 per cent. more than in 1987–88, the year before the valleys programme was launched. The Wales tourist board has launched the first phase of a major new marketing campaign designed to attract more visitors to the valleys. Health services in the valleys have received support, with two new health centres at Blaengwynfi and Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen. Ten more valleys health projects will be funded in 1989–90.

  Owner-occupation has increased from 59 per cent. of housing stock in 1979 to 69 per cent. Almost 71,000 public sector dwellings have been sold to their tenants under the right to buy and voluntary terms since 1980, and over 57,000 new homes have been built for sale. Since 1979, over 15,000 dwellings have been provided by housing associations for sale or rent to help people in housing need. Housing for Wales (Tai Cymru) was set up under the Housing Act 1988. Between 1979 and 1986, the proportion of Welsh households lacking basic amenities more than halved and this progress has been continued over the last three years. Over 162,000 home improvement grant schemes for private sector dwellings have been completed since July 1979, with a value of £479 million. In the same period, £446 million has been spent on the renovation of local authority housing stock. Since 1982, over 8,300 dwellings have been improved under enveloping schemes.

  Expenditure on the health services in Wales has risen by almost 45 per cent. after allowing for general inflation between 1978–79 and 1989–90. Nearly £700 million at current prices will have been invested in the capital estate of the hospital and community health services in the period April 1979 to March 1990: five major hospitals have been completed with a sixth due for completion before the end of this year. The number of staff directly concerned with patient care has increased by over 21 per cent. since 1979, and 28 per cent. more in-patients and 21 per cent. more out-patients were treated in 1987 than in 1979.

  Current expenditure on education in Wales, excluding school meals and milk, was provisionally 10.9 per cent. higher in real terms in 1987–89 than in 1978–79. Pupil numbers dropped by 16·1 per cent. in the same period; and expenditure per nursery/primary pupil rose by over 27 per cent. from £792 to £1,004, anti per secondary pupil by over 36 per cent., from £1,090 to £1,488, their best ever levels. The number of students on courses of advanced further education in the public sector rose from 9,000 in 1979–80 to 14,500 in 1987–88, an increase of 61 per cent.

  Since 1979, almost £900 million has been spent on providing some 140 miles of motorway and trunk roads in Wales. In addition over £240 million has been spent on structural renewal and on general maintenance. The road programmes for the 1990s have been set out in the new edition of "Roads in Wales" published on 10 April 1989. Since 1979–80, overall net resources to the WTB have increased by 185 per cent., including an increase of 135 per cent. in support of projects creating almost 4,000 jobs.
  719
  The Government's direct financial support for the Welsh language has increased annually from £0·2 million in 1979–80 to around £4·6 million in 1989–90. Since the Government decision to set up the Welsh fourth television channel in 1982, S4C has been an outstanding success in both artistic and employment terms. In July 1988, the Government established the Welsh Language Board to advise on all matters relating to the use of Welsh in the public and private sector. A major expansion scheme at the national museum of Wales is in progress.

HEALTH

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was spent in each health region in each of the last three years on the care and treatment of patients suffering from(a) schizophrenia and (b) all mental illness; and what percentage each figure was of total expenditure on health services;

  (2) what is the current annual cost per patient to the National Health Service of the care and treatment of patients suffering from (a) mental illness and (b) schizophrenia psychoses;

  Revenue Expenditure on Hospitals Categorised as "Mental Illness"

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Region

  Revenue Expenditure £000

  Percentage of total revenue expenditure

  Revenue Expenditure £000

  Percentage of total revenue expenditure

  Revenue Expenditure £000

  Percentage of total revenue Expenditure

  (cash)

  (cash)

  (cash)

  Northern

  53,150

  9·06

  55,341

  8·92

  57,780

  8·69

  Yorkshire

  60,176

  9·15

  62,327

  8·91

  63,883

  8·54

  Trent

  68,557

  8·62

  74,271

  8·81

  78,973

  8·64

  East Anglia

  31,488

  9·39

  34,273

  9·57

  36,333

  9·33

  North West Thames

  68,511

  9·77

  73,968

  10·15

  74,047

  9·52

  North East Thames

  69,895

  7·93

  71,224

  7·79

  75,608

  7·75

  South East Thames

  74,529

  9·65

  65,218

  8·08

  76,136

  8·88

  South West Thames

  69,969

  11·93

  72,672

  11·95

  74,067

  11·39

  Wessex

  49,980

  10·36

  51,132

  10·09

  55,041

  10·02

  Oxford

  26,661

  6·98

  27,553

  6·85

  29,431

  6·78

  South Western

  56,016

  9·81

  57,490

  9·53

  57,891

  8·91

  West Midlands

  82,548

  8·98

  85,875

  8·82

  89,801

  8·55

  Mersey

  46,221

  9·56

  46,977

  9·25

  47,681

  8·78

  North Western

  31,127

  3·82

  33,243

  3·86

  35,215

  3·82

  All regions Total

  788,828

  8·80

  811,564

  8·60

  851,887

  8·41

  Sources:—

  "Health Services Costing Returns" and annual acccounts of regional and district health authorities—1984–85 to 1986–87.

  Notes:

  1. The revenue expenditure for the mental illness hospitals includes expenditure on in-patients, out-patients and day patients.

  2. The figures used for total revenue expenditure are for hospital and community health services revenue expenditure incurred by regional and district health authorities. HCHS includes hospital, community, ambulance, blood transfusion and other services.

  Nurses
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his written answer of 10 May to the hon. Member for Newham, South concerning a charge made by the nurse central clearing house (NCCH) for pre-registration application of £6,Official Report, column 454 he will consider re-imbursing that body for the costs incurred, as part of his responsibilities for encouraging recruitment for the nursing profession.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. There is no evidence that the charge made by the nurses central clearing house has an adverse effect on recruitment.
  720
  (3) how much was spent in the last year on the care and treatment of patients suffering from schizophrenia; and what percentage that figure represented of total expenditure on (a) mental and (b) all health services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information specifically on the total expenditure incurred on and the treatment costs of patients suffering from schizophrenia is not collected centrally. For costing purposes all hospitals are classified into one or other of a series of standard types which reflect the principal use to which their beds are allocated and costing returns in respect of community health services show expenditure relating to the main areas of activity only. Thus, the table shows the available information by region on hospitals categorised as "Mental Illness" for the financial years 1984–85 to 1986–87, but excludes the growing volume of activity in psychiatric units in acute and other hospitals and within community health services which is not identifiable separately.

  The average cost in England of maintaining an in-patient in hospitals categorised as "Mental Illness" was £44·05 per day in 1986–87—equivalent to some £16,000 per annum.

  We intend to publish a volume in the series "Health Services Costing Returns" covering the financial year 1987–88 this summer.

  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number of regrading appeals for nurses are still under consideration; and how long on average cases are taking to settle.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of labour turnover nationally per annum in the nursing profession within the National Health Service; and whether he will provide figures for the best, worst and average regions.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have information of this nature centrally at present. Information on the number of nurses
  721
  joining and leaving National Health Service employment is however now being collected, and should be available later this year.

  Halton District Health Authority
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage increase in the number of day case admissions in Halton district health authority over the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  During the financial year 1987–88, 3,331 day cases were treated by Halton district health authority. This is an increase of 29 per cent. over the 1986 figure of 2,575 day cases. Some patients previously classified as a day case may now be classified as a ward attender. There were 688 ward attenders in Halton during 1987–88.

  Snapethorpe Hospital, Wakefield
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the secretary of State for Health what discussions(a) his Department, (b) the Yorkshire regional health authority and (c) the Wakefield district health authority have had or plan to have with relatives of the late Mr. Benjamin Sykes, the benefactor of the hospital, regarding the proposed closure of Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield.

  Mr. Freeman
  Neither the Department of Health, the Yorkshire regional health authority, nor the Wakefield district health authority has any record of discussions with relatives of the late Benjamin Sykes, and there are no plans for such discussions. The hospital site and buildings were vested in the Secretary of State under the NHS Act 1946 free of any trust.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which treatments previously available to patients at Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield, are not currently available in alternative hospitals within the Wakefield health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Infectious disease beds were provided at Snapethorpe hospital until 1978, when the service was transferred to Seacroft hospital, Leeds Eastern health authority. Pre-convalescent beds were provided at Snapethorpe hospital until 1979 and are not currently provided within the district. These service changes were consulted upon at the time and endorsed by the local community health council.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 May, what information he has as to who instructed Wakefield district health authority to withdraw from discussions with the Wakefield district council regarding the possibility of a scheme of joint use of Snapethorpe hospital; and what were the reasons for this instruction.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. This is a matter for the Wakefield district health authority in consultation with the Yorkshire regional health authority.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his reply of 22 May, if he will require a report from the Wakefield health authority as to why plans for the building of houses on the site of Snapethorpe hospital, Wakefield, were drawn up by officers of that authority before the members of the authority had resolved to close the hospital.
  722
  Mr. Freeman
  No. As I indicated in my reply of 22 May, at column 414, such matters are for the Wakefield health authority in consultation with the regional health authority.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to respond to the Select Committee on Social Services recommendations in respect of midwives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will be taking over the Select Committee's recommendations regarding midwives regrading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 10 May 1988, at columns 450–51.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals he has, arising from his White Paper "Working for Patients", to improve maternity care;

  (2) whether he has any plans to improve access to care for mothers-to-be;

  (3) whether he has any plans to ensure maternity care is provided near to home to avoid women having to travel long distances for antenatal and postnatal care;

  (4) whether he has any plans to improve postnatal care;

  (5) whether he has any plans to provide more antenatal care in the community;

  (6) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on whether maternity services should be based on an integrated pre-planned service or on emergency admission; what steps are being taken in respect of this policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The proposals in "Working for Patients" are designed to improve all NHS services and apply as much to maternity as to any other service. The Government recognise the importance of continuity and accessibility of care throughout pregnancy and the need for close co-operation among professionals and with parents, particularly in planning the management of a pregnancy in accordance with the wishes of the mother-to-be. Under the White Paper's proposals maternity services will, therefore, continue to be provided locally for those wishing to make use of them and in order to cover emergency situations. The proposals are also designed to increase people's choice of where care is obtained, particularly for people living in large towns. It will remain for local decision how best to meet local needs.

  From the Department's monitoring of the implementation of the Maternity Services Advisory Committee's recommendations, which include specific advice on improving accessibility to antenatal and postnatal care, it is evident that significant improvements have been made. We believe that the emphasis placed by the White Paper on putting patients first will stimulate further improvements. A questionnaire package, which has been developed by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys at the request of the Department, will shortly be made available to all district health authorities to assist them in seeking to establish women's opinions on the maternity services provided to them.

  Medical Audit
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what projects concerning medical audit have been financed by regions for further study; and what criteria he put forward for the regional health authorities to use in drawing up their submissions.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have set up a central fund to support medical audit projects. We have asked regional health authorities to submit up to five bids each in priority order for consideration by a supervisory panel. Regions will be expected to contribute at least half the cost of each project. The guidance to regions indicted that priority would be given to projects involving large numbers of clinicians, particularly if they covered a whole unit, district or region.

  We hope to announce the results shortly. In addition, several regions have set up their own schemes to support medical audit projects.

  Condoms
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make regulations relating to the quality of condoms mandatory.

  Mr. Mellor
  This issue remains under review. The British Standards Institution published its revised condom standard (BS 3704–1989) on 30 March. It has been approved under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Approval of Safety Standards Regulations 1987, which makes it easier for action to be taken, for example, by trading standards officers, against suppliers of condoms which do not meet the standard.

  Census Statistics
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many companies are licensed by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to analyse and re-supply small area statistics from the 1981 census.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has concluded licence or agency agreements with 13 companies to hold and supply small area statistics from the 1981 census.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what total royalties have been received by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for each year since 1981 from the companies which are licensed by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to analyse and re-supply small areas statistics.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total revenue received each financial year by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from companies with agreements to hold and supply small area statistics from the 1981 census is shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Total revenue(£)

  1982–83

  27,980

  1983–84

  105,583

  1984–85

  47,889

  1985–86

  163,297

  1986–87

  136,759

  1987–88

  66,015

  1988–89

  55,924

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many companies which sold small area 724
  statistics under licence from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys also hold on computer names and addresses of members of the public collected from the electoral register.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has any plans to introduce measures for the training of social workers in order to prepare them more adequately for work with mentally ill people;

  (2) if he has discussed with the Association of Teachers in Social Work Education ways in which social workers can be trained to deal more adequately with mentally ill people.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW) is the statutory body responsible for social work training. To date some 90 per cent. of local authorities have produced a programme of CCETSW approved training for approved social workers under the Mental Health Act 1983. All qualifying courses for social workers are expected, according to CCETSW's minimum requirements, to include some training in mental illness. CCETSW has also approved a number of post-qualifying courses specialising in mental illness or with options in this area of work. We have had no discussions with ATSWE about training for those social workers dealing with mentally ill people.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to ensure that all dental assistants and other persons who assist qualified dental surgery assistants have had a full course of vaccinations against hepatitis B and a follow up positive seroconversion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has advised that vaccination against hepatitis B should be considered for all dentists, dental students, dental assistants and others who may come into direct contact with patients, but whether any individual should be vaccinated must depend on the views of their medical adviser.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, under notice FPN 472, patients have to pay for dentures and bridges provided through hospital and community dental services; if they would have been liable to pay for the same treatment when provided by general dental practitioners; and if the bridge prescriptions proposed by a general dental practitioner or hospital and community dental services will be subject to the same prior approval requirement as are prescriptions proposed by general practitioners.

  Mr. Freeman
  Hospital and community dental service out-patients who are not exempt are expected to meet the same NHS charge of dentures and bridges as are patients treated by general dental practitioners. Patients who are exempt are people under 18, full-time students under 19, pregnant women and nursing mothers, and people on low incomes. In addition, no charges are payable in the hospital and community dental service by people who have
  725
  undergone operative procedures affecting the mandible, the maxilla or the soft tissues of the mouth as part of treatment for invasive tumours. There is no prior approval requirement in the hospital or community dental service.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many abortions took place at the premises 32 Parkfield road, Liverpool 17, in each year since it was licensed;

  (2) if he will break down the number of abortions performed at 32 Parkfield road, Liverpool 17, into the categories specified in the Abortion Act 1967; and at what number of weeks' gestation those abortions took place.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on abortions performed in any individual approved place is not released for reasons of maintaining confidentiality.

  Pain Relief Foundation
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any policy or plans to provide funding for the Pain Relief Foundation which is situated at Walton hospital, Liverpool.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health has recently renewed the grant-aid awarded to the Pain Relief Foundation under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, and has agreed to provide funding of £8,500 per annum for the three years 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  Pharmaceutical Products
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make a decision on the provision of manufacturers' site identification on labels of pharmaceutical products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We cannot yet say. The proposal to require site declaration was particularly controversial and account must be taken of comments received in consultation before decisions are reached on MLX 167 proposals as a whole.

  Doctors
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the cost of the proposed Crown indemnity for doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  The consultation paper issued by the Health Departments on 20 March, a copy of which is in the Library, noted that medical defence subscriptions had trebled between 1986 and 1988 and were continuing to rise. The NHS currently spends an estimated £30 million per year through a scheme whereby two thirds of subscription costs are re-imbursed. At present the cost of providing an NHS indemnity is expected to be comparable.

  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the average cost to health authorities of employing an individual hospital doctor supplied by agencies and the salary and emolument costs of a doctor directly employed by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have the information in the form requested. However, as an example the cost of 726
  directly employing a senior house officer in the National Health Service for 72 hours duty in a week is estimated at £470, whereas we have advised health authorities that the maximum they should pay an agency supplying a doctor to do this work is £774. That advice was issued by me on 25 November 1988. It pegged the maximum permissible payments to agencies to 1987–88 levels and those levels remain in force.

  Transplants
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about a register of bone marrow donors.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are two registers of bone marrow donors in the United Kingdom. One is run by the Anthony Nolan Research Centre and is a charitable organisation; the other is the British Bone Marrow and Platelet Donor Panel, which was compiled in collaboration with the National Blood Transfusion Service. The use of donor registries is a matter for the judgment of individual clinicians, responsible for the care of patients who might benefit from a bone marrow transplant.

  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had on joint action between local authorities and health authorities to seek to reduce the perinatal mortality and infant mortality rates to at least 8 per 1,000 in every regional health authority;

  (2) what action he has taken on the recommendation of the Social Services Committee's first report on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality, in particular the recommendations that the target objectives of regions and districts should be reflected in their resource allocations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's response to the Social Services Committee's first report on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality will be published shortly. 'The response will set out not only the Government's response to the recommendations made by the Committee, but also what other action is in hand to ensure the continued reduction in the perinatal and infant mortality rates in England.

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will announce the appointment of the chairman of the South East Thames regional health authority from 1 August.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am pleased to announce that Sir Peter Baldwin has accepted my invitation to serve in this most important position for another two years.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made in the cash limits of his Department for 1989–90.

  Mr. Mellor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary and Revised Estimates, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 1 (hospital and community health and other services, England) will be

  727
  increased by £113,005,000 from £11,748,942,000 to £11,861,947,000 to help provide, from 1 April 1989, for the pay awards recommended in the 1989 reports of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, healthpisitors and professions allied to medicine and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16 February 1989.

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 3 (Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be reduced by £2,525,000 from £670,695,000 to £668,170,000. A reduction of £3,470,000 is being made to allow for transfers to class XV, vote 7 (Department of Social Security, administration and miscellaneous services) in respect of the independent living fund (£2,700,000), motability (a net £550,000) and to correct the apportionment of resources for departmental administration following the split of the former Department of Health and Social Security (£220,000). A further reduction of £50,000 is being made to offset increased provision on class XIV, vote 2 (Family practitioner and other services, England) in respect of residual transaction expenses arising in connection with the reconstitution of the General Practice Finance Corporation. These reductions are partly offset by an additional £995,000 to meet in full, from 1 April 1989, the review body recommendations mentioned above. The provision for running costs on this vote and the Department's running costs limit is increased by £559,000 from £238,256,000 to £238,815,000.

  The increases will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now publish the outturn figures for 1987–88 for compensation and early retirement in the manner described in the Government's reply to the first report from the Social Services Committee of Session 1984–85, breaking down the figures to distinguish between competitive tendering and other cases.

  Mr. Freeman
  The outturn figures for 1987–88 are as follows:

  Number of cases

  Compensation cost

  Total cost including superannuation

  £

  £

  Competitive tendering

  New cases

  821

  1,834,000

  3,990,000

  Continuing cases

  3,405

  3,525,000

  3,967,000

  Other cases

  New cases

  1,546

  5,678,000

  19,326,000

  Continuing cases

  9,490

  15,047,000

  43,676,000

  OPCS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any changes to announce to both the cash and gross running cost limits for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Revised Estimate, the cash limit for class XX, vote 15 will be reduced by £114,000 from £30,367,000 to 728
  £30,253,000. The OPCS gross running cost limit for class XX, vote 15 will be decreased by £114,000 from £35,491,000 to £35,377,000. The reductions reflect a correction to running costs, which included the overhead costs of methodology and consultancy expenditure by OPCS, by a transfer to the section of the vote for the administrative costs of social survey work exempt from gross running cost control. The costs will be fully offset by increased appropriations in aid from customer departments.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in hand for monitoring the effects of charges for eye tests on different sectors of the population in relation to the numbers coming forward for such tests; and whether a report will be made publicly available in due course.

  Mr. Mellor
  We expect to commission a survey into the number of private sight tests in the autumn, although the precise details have yet to be worked out. We expect that, at the least, a summary of the report's findings will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Reform
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change in administrative arrangements he intends to introduce for supra regional hospital units including spinal units, as a consequence of the Government's White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 23 May 1989]: The NHS review working paper 2 noted the Government's expectation that the centre would continue to fund the fixed costs of units providing supra regional services, both to ensure their viability and to ensure a properly controlled spread of high cost and high technology treatments; it envisaged that the variable costs would be met by GPs and DHAs under contract. Detailed work is currently under way on this proposal. Announcements on the new arrangements, and on the future of individual supra regional services, will be made later in the year.

  Private Patients (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the revenue generated from private patients at hospitals in Bolton in 1988, and what were the comparable figures for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply 18 May 1989, c, 285]: The following information is derived from the annual accounts of the Bolton health authority:

  Income from private patients (under sections 65 and 66 of the NHS Act 1977)

  In-patients(section 65)

  Out-patients(section 66)

  £

  £

  (cash)

  (cash)

  1982–83

  129,179

  7,322

  1983–84

  99,089

  6,267

  1984–85

  11,329

  171

  1985–86

  14,826

  6,253

  1986–87

  14,847

  8,950

  1987–88

  8,888

  10,189

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date Skyguard fire control radar system will be implemented to register military aircraft flying below the permitted levels of operation; whether the information obtained will show the air forces concerned; where the information will be published; what disciplinary action will be enforced against offending pilots; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Skyguard fire control radar system will be deployed in the low flying monitoring role later this year. Apparent infringements of the regulations governing low-flying training by military aircraft using the United Kingdom low-flying system will be followed up as at present and appropriate action taken.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement in respect of military jet aircraft overflying the village of Clayton in the Don Valley constituency, in which a transit area is in force, on 11 May at 1221 hours, 1509 hours and 1530 hours all of which were under 1,000 feet; and to what NATO air force these were attached.

  Mr. Neubert
  If the hon. Member would care to write to me with further details I should be happy to consider the matter.

  Spending Statistics
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is spent on defence per household, per year by Government,; what is his definition of a household: and how many there are in the United Kingdom currently.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Defence expenditure per household for 1989–90 will be just over £900, based on a defence budget of £20,143 million and the Department of the Environment's latest estimate of the number of households in the United Kingdom during 1989 of 22·1 million. The definition of a household is set out in "Social Trends 1989", published by the Central Statistical Office:"A single person or group of people who have the address as their only or main residence and who either share one meal a day or share the living accommodation."

  Noise Insulation (Lakenheath)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis he nominated Alpine Double Glazing to be the recommended contractor for insulation work associated with the noise compensation scheme recently announced for RAF Lakenheath, Mildenhall; and why other local insulation firms were not given an opportunity to seek his nomination and recommendation on a competitive basis.

  Mr. Neubert
  Alpine (Double Glazing) Company Ltd. was selected as the recommended contractor for installation work associated with the noise insulation grant scheme for RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall as the result of a competitive tendering exercise. Tenders were invited from six double glazing companies, including one (Easiglaze Windows Ltd.) based locally, on the basis of advice from the Glass and Glazing Federation on those 730
  companies that were likely to have the capacity to meet the demand generated by the 5,600 homes in the area covered by the schemes.

  Sky Pageant
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to why the annual sky pageant will not be held at the RAF base at Upper Heyford, Oxfordshire, in the current year.

  Mr. Neubert
  I understand that the United States authorities at the base have decided not to hold the sky pageant this year, which is a national event, but instead to hold a Heyford "At Home" day which will be orientated toward the local community.

  Nuclear Weapons Convoys
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the key statistics for accidents involving the road transportation of nuclear weapon convoys over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been the practice of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at particular places and times. I cannot, therefore, give statistics of accidents involving the transport of nuclear weapons. There has never been an accident involving damage to a nuclear weapon in the United Kingdom.

  Soviet Navy (Missiles)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has that the Soviet Navy is deploying sea-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government have convincing evidence that the Soviets are on the verge of deploying a variety of sophisticated cruise missile systems. At sea, the Soviets have tested the SS-N-21 sea-launched cruise missile, which could be carried and launched by a variety of Soviet general purpose attack submarines, such as Victor, Akula or Sierra. Yankee class nuclear submarines have also been converted to carry SS-N-21 missiles. Targets in Europe, Asia or North America could be attacked by these accurate missiles, which we assume are fitted with nuclear warheads. The larger SS-N-X24 missile, which could be carried in specialised submarine platforms such as the modified Yankee class, is expected to be operational in the next few years.

  NATO Military Establishments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total value to the economy for Yorkshire and Humberside of the presence of military establishments of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation armed forces in various locations in the region.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No such estimate has been made for the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Queen's Own Hussars
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers in the Queen's Own Hussars went absent without leave in 1988.
  731
  Mr. Neubert
  Four.

  Lance Missiles
  Mr. Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the position of the Greek, Danish and Norwegian Governments on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation plans to modernise short-range nuclear Lance missiles in western Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Greece, Denmark and Norway agreed the communique issued at the end of the recent NATO nuclear planning group meeting in Brussels. In doing so, they expressed their determination to ensure that NATO possesses diversified, survivable and operationally feasible nuclear forces across the entire spectrum and agreed that these forces should be kept up-to-date where necessary.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimated savings envisaged under his proposals for the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Although the future deployment and precise force structure of the Brigade of Gurkhas have not yet been decided, annual expenditure on the planned Gurkha force after 1997 is likely to be greater than current expenditure on the Gurkhas as a result of the loss of the contribution made by the Hong Kong Government.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned strength of(a) the Queen's Gurkhas Engineers, (b) the Queen's Gurkhas Signals and (c) the Queen's Gurkhas Transport Regiment after 1997.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The plans for the future of the Queen's Gurkha Engineers, the Queen's Gurkha Signals and the Gurkha Transport Regiment after 1997 include their retention at a strength that is operationally and organisationally viable. The eventual number of squadrons that will be required will depend on detailed decisions on the Brigade of Gurkhas which have not yet been taken.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of service accommodation is(a) grade 1, (b) grade 2, (c) grade 3 and (d) grade 4; and what were those percentages for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  The percentage of service accommodation in the various grades over the past 10 years cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. I will write to the hon. Member with the percentages for the current year.

  Foulness (Property)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the properties he has demolished in the parish of Foulness, Essex, since becoming the principal landlord there; if he will give the reasons for demolition; and whether the properties concerned were residental.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: The MOD has owned Foulness Island since the first world war. The available records show that, since 1986, seven residential properties have been demolished, three for operational
  732
  reasons because they were in the range danger area and the remainder because they were structurally unsound and beyond economic repair. A number of farm outbuildings have also been demolished. Property used for defence purposes which has been demolished includes offices and stores buildings.

  Propeller Driven Aircraft
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list those areas of the United Kingdom where heavy propeller driven aircraft are permitted to fly at less than 250 feet minimum separation distance.

  Mr. Neubert
  Flying below 250 feet by heavy propeller-driven aircraft is permitted, on special authorisation, in the three tactical training areas and for free-drop training on designated drop zones in military danger areas.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list the numbers of aircraft movements authorised for low-flying at less than 250 feet minimum separation distance in(a) the Northern Scotland tactical training area, (b) the Central Wales tactical training area, and (c) the Borders tactical training area during 1988; and on how many days in 1988 such low flying was authorised in each training area.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested regarding aircraft movements authorised for flying below 250 feet within tactical training areas during 1988 is given in the table. It should be noted that figures for the number of days on which flying took place are likely to have been substantially lower because alternative dates are often requested for use in the event of bad weather. It should also be noted that the movements figures for the borders tactical training area have, since July 1988, been recorded on a different basis following the extension to the Borders training area approved by my predesessor in March 1988 and the number of movements quoted for this area is not therefore directly comparable with previous figures.

  Tactical training area

  Operational low flying movements

  Number of days on which operational low flying was authorized

  Northern Scotland

  828

  115

  Central Wales

  60

  60

  Borders

  1,227

  121

  Naval Accidents
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the key statistics for military naval accidents over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Our records show that during this period there have been 542 incidents involving groundings or collisions between vessels of the Royal Navy, Royal Fleet Auxiliary or the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and either other vessels or static installations. A breakdown of this figure into various categories of incident is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost and effort. The great majority of these incidents, however, are very minor, resulting in little or no damage.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hedges
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grant aid his Department has given to encourage the planting of hedges in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ryder
  Grants paid by my Department and the Welsh Office in England and Wales for hedge planting and hedge laying amounted to £2·18 million in the 1988 calendar year.

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present position regarding the development of a diagnostic test for food irradiation.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much research his Department is currently funding into food irradiation.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Last year the Ministry funded research into food irradiation and its effects on packaging materials to the sum of about £200,000. Research funding in the current financial year is expected to be the same.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's current policy on food irradiation; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about irradiation of food.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg).

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce his decisions on his proposals for the control of the irradiation of food.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) earlier today.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the irradiation of food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg).

  National Institute of Agricultural Botany
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what cumulative savings were achieved over five years in grants to the National Institute of Agricultural Botany by the policy of not fully funding pay awards.
  734
  Mr. Ryder
  In each of the last five years funding has been sufficient to enable the National Institute of Agricultural Botany to fully implement pay awards.

  Country Landowners Association
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Country Landowners Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  My ministerial colleagues and I regularly meet the president of the Country Landowners Association. My right hon. Friend the Minister last met him on 3 May, when a wide range of issues were discussed.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the most up-to-date estimate of the amount and value in pounds sterling of surplus food and drink in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the EEC as a result of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Ryder
  A note setting out the volume of stocks of agricultural commodities held in intervention and assisted private storage in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the EC as a whole, is deposited in the Library of the House and is updated monthly. The estimated value of the stocks listed in the most recently deposited note, depreciated as now required following the February 1988 European Council agreement, is £125 million for the United Kingdom, and £14·6 billion for the EC as a whole.

  Lamb (Variable Premium)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the amount paid during 1988 as variable premium on lamb to British producers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A sum of £161,953,345 was paid by way of sheep variable premium to British producers in 1988.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the variable premium on lamb.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any arrangements are currently in hand for the statutory examination by veterinary officials at non-EEC export-approved slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his decision to pay the suckler cow premium in full will enhance United Kingdom beef production.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the 1989–90 scheme year the rate of.suckler cow premium will be £47·43 per cow, an
  735
  increase of 42 per cent. over last year. This will give further support and encouragement to producers who are currently rebuilding their suckler herds and help to offset the reduction in calf supplies from the dairy herd. Consumers will benefit as the proportion of United Kingdom production from beef cows increases.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage increase in the suckler cow premium over the previous year; and how much this will add to the incomes of beef farmers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The rate to be paid in the 1989–90 scheme year will be £47·43 per cow, the maximum permitted under Community rules. This is 42 per cent. higher than last year. We estimate that the total payment to United Kingdom producers will be £57 million, some £20 million higher than last year.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how his decision to pay the suckler cow premium at its maximum level will affect farm incomes, particularly in the less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We estimate that total payments of suckler cow premium to United Kingdom producers in 1989–90 will be £57 million, some £20 million more than last year. About 70 per cent. of the specialist beef herd is in the less-favoured areas and so it is likely that the major part of this increase will benefit producers farming in the most difficult parts of the country.

  Untreated Milk
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received following the issue of his consultation paper on untreated milk.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had about the sale of green top milk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations his Department has received calling for(a) the retention and (b) the banning of green top milk.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to announce the result of his consultations on green top milk.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce his decision with regard to green top milk.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the consultations he has been having on the question of banning untreated milk in England and Wales; and when he expects to be able to announce his conclusions.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the banning of green top milk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We have received a large number of representations. The majority are from consumers who wish to remain free to choose untreated 736
  milk and from producers who wish to continue supplying it. On the other hand, a number of bodies concerned about public health, including various enforcement authorities, have supported the proposal to ban sales. The period allowed for comment has now expired and we are considering, in the light of all comments received, what our policy should be. My right hon. Friend hopes to make a further announcement shortly.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information has become available in the course of his consultation into the question of banning the sale of untreated milk in England and Wales on(a) how many people can indisputably be said to have become ill from the consumption of such milk and (b) how many illnesses could be deemed serious.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health provided data on confirmed reports of food poisoning associated with consumption of raw milk in England and Wales in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 9 February at column 808. No new information has become available during the consultation exercise, nor is it possible to distinguish between serious and trivial cases. However, the very fact that a case is reported means that an individual has been sufficiently ill to consult his doctor.

  Beef Premium
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the new beef premium to be fully operational.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the initial introduction of the beef payment scheme for British farmers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave earlier to the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

  Sheep Regime
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest information he has about current negotiations over the revision of the EEC sheep regime.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his discussions about the future of the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells).

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of European Community grant-aid is being received by British fishermen for the modernisation of their fleets.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the April round of Community awards the European Commission granted £1·30 million (1.99 mecus) in respect of 83 United Kingdom vessel modernisation projects.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is yet able to make a statement on the outcome of the inquiry into the working of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I do not yet have anything to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 19 April, at column 175.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the fishing industry in response to the Government's proposal to abolish the national dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None, but prior to the Government's proposal being made, the fishing industry had made many representations for removal of the national dock labour scheme in relation to fish landings.

  Landscape
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to introduce any new measures to enhance the quality of the British landscape.

  Mr. Ryder
  The introduction of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme in 1987 and the farm woodland scheme in 1988 is making an important contribution to the quality of the British landscape. In addition, the farm and conservation grant scheme, introduced in February, offers, for the first time, grants for repairs to traditional farm buildings and for the regeneration of heather moors and native woodlands as well as continuing assistance for hedge and shelter belt planting and the construction of stone walls.

  Farmers entering the set-aside scheme are encouraged to consider ways in which set-aside of their land may benefit the landscape. Moreover, the Countryside Commission will shortly be announcing details of a scheme to encourage farmers to manage set-aside land to benefit conservation and recreation.

  Until the effectiveness of these major new schemes becomes clear it would be premature to introduce any additional measures.

  Extensification Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that proper conservation measures are included in his new extensification scheme.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to introduce his extensification scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  I shall shortly be opening consultation on the implementation in the United Kingdom of the Community extensification scheme, including on appropriate environmental measures.

  Nitrate Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is proposing to take to prevent the pollution of water courses by nitrate fertiliser.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received recently from representatives of farmers concerning pollution caused by nitrate fertilisers and farm waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Farmers' representatives have in broad terms welcomed the Government's general approach to tackling the nitrate problem as set out in the consultation document recently issued by the Agriculture Departments of England and Wales. They also broadly support the measures being taken to combat the farm waste pollution problem.

  Organic Foods
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he envisages a further expansion of the production of organic foods following the introduction and processing standards by the United Kingdom register of organic food standards.

  Mr. Ryder
  I believe that publication of the UKROFS standards and certification schemes will give consumers greater confidence to buy organic food and I hope that producers will respond to the resulting increase in demand.

  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is encouraging the development of nationally, and internationally, recognised standards of organic food production.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food encouraged Food From Britain in establishing the United Kingdom register of organic food standards (UKROFS) in July 1987. The result of this initiative is that the board of UKROFS, under the chairmanship of Professor Colin Spedding, announced standards for the production and processing of organic food on 2 May. In addition, the European Commission has announced that it will be proposing standards for the whole Community to which, I am sure, the UKROFS standards will make an important decision.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the United Kingdom register of organic food standards is developing certification and inspection services to ensure that its requirements are properly enforced.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yes. UKROFS is offering a certification system for producer organisations whose members produce or process food to UKROFS standards and who are subject to inspection by those organisations. This provides for independent monitoring inspections to be carried out on behalf of UKROFS. UKROFS also offers a certification scheme to independent producers who will be regularly inspected. I am placing a copy of the details of the certification arrangements and standards in the Library of the House.

  Experimental Station, Rosewarne
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to make an official visit to the experimental horticultural station at Rosewarne, Camborne; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  No. Ministers and officials in my Department are in touch with representatives of local growers and other interests about possible alternatives to the proposed closure as announced by my right hon. Friend in my reply to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) of 21 March.

  Veterinary Officers
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinary officers are currently employed by his Department.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On 1 May 1989 there were 439 permanent veterinary officers in all grades employed in the Department.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the recent European Community price-fixing settlement will benefit farm incomes in the course of a full year.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on 2 May, at column 85.

  Festival of Food and Farming
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will estimate the return on the investment made by the food and agriculture industry in the Hyde park festival.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The festival was designed to show how much the British food and farming industry contributes to all our lives. The four-day event was a great success and the public response far exceeded expectations. It is not possible to quantify any returns, but I am sure that all those who contributed or exhibited must feel their money was very well spent.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there are any plans to repeat the Hyde park festival of food and farming.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The festival, which marked the 150th anniversary of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, was a great success and gave tremendous pleasure to hundreds of thousands of visitors. However, it clearly would not be possible to stage such an event very often and I know of no immediate plans for a repeat.

  Eggs
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on any differences between the health standards required for eggs produced in Britain and those required in other European Community countries.
  740
  Mr. Ryder
  Eggs marketed in the United Kingdom and in all other member states of the Community must meet the standards prescribed in Council regulation (EEC) 2772/75 and Commission regulation (EEC) 95/69. These standards include matters relevant to health such as the cleanliness of authorised egg packing centres and of the eggs themselves.

  Women Farmers Union
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Women Farmers Union; and what matters they discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last met the chairman of the Women's Farming Union on 24 February at a forum on 1992 issues held by its Norfolk branch. As might be expected, the topic which dominated discussion concerned the impact of the single European market.

  Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will visit Northumberland to meet representatives of the farming industry and to assess the state of agriculture in the area.

  Mr Ryder
  I frequently make visits around the country to keep abreast of agricultural developments.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to meet the Potato Processors Association to discuss pricing by Dutch competitors in the industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no such plans.

  National Farmers Union
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I meet the president of the National Farmers Union frequently to discuss agricultural matters.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any consumer groups have written to him urging him to give a product licence for bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. It would be inappropriate for any group to urge me to pre-empt the rigorous scientific evaluation of BST required by the Medicines Act.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about farm diversification.
  741
  Mr. Ryder
  On 15 March the president of the NFU wrote to me, on behalf of the NFU, NFU of Scotland, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Farmers Union of Wales, about various tenancy matters, including a request for tenant farmers to have a right of appeal against any landlords refusal to allow diversification. I am pleased to say that there are signs that tenants are participating in the farm diversification grant scheme and I do not think that any change in tenancy law is appropriate on this point.

  My Department here also received representations from some organisations seeking recognition for their members to undertake grant-aided enterprise feasibility studies.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money his Department has paid out in compensation in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in infected cattle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  From 8 August last year, when the compulsory slaughter policy was introduced, until the end of April this year, £1,272,558 had been paid in compensation.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his veterinary service first received tissues of cows suspected of being infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The samples from which bovine spongiform encephalopathy was first identified as a new disease were received at the Ministry's central veterinary laboratory on 3 November 1986, which was the same day that the animal was slaughtered.

  Food Quality
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any new proposals to improve the wholesomeness of food available to the British consumer.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is already an offence under food legislation to sell food that is unfit for human consumption or food that is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser. Regulations also already cover matters concerned with the hygiene and handling of food and discussions with interested parties are currently proceeding on how these need to be updated.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Forestry Commission; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last met the chairman of the Forestry Commission on 9 March, when we discussed a range of forestry matters.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the milk quota regime.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The European Council agreed in February 1988 to extend the present milk quota regime 742
  until March 1992 and invited the Commission to submit a report on its operation before the end of 1990–91 marketing year. I have been pressing for the future of the regime to be addressed by the Council of Agriculture Ministers as soon as possible.

  Co-responsibility Levies
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy to continue pressing for the complete abolition of co-responsibility levies.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am opposed to co-responsibility levies and shall continue to press for their abolition while respecting budgetary discipline. I am very pleased that, in the recent price settlement, following our pressure the Council has taken a step in this direction, agreeing significant cuts in the milk co-responsibility levy and its removal in less-favoured areas.

  Animal Health
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications for animal health of freer European markets for agricultural products.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Although the Commission has made a number of proposals on animal health issues in anticipation of the realisation of the single market, it has not yet made proposals on the regime to apply after its completion. The Government's position is quite clear. We aim to secure the right balance between minimising barriers to trade and maintaining effective veterinary controls as long as they are necessary to prevent the spread of disease.

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the farmed salmon industry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The salmon farming industry, concentrated mainly off the west coast and islands of Scotland, continues to make an important contribution to our economy, to employment and to export earnings. In 1988, United Kingdom production reached 18,000 tonnes, with a first sale value of some £72 million.

  Agricultural Support (Primary Producers)
  Sir Michael Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the principle of payment to the primary producer, established in the new suckler cow premium, will be extracted to other forms of agricultural support.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Under the common agricultural policy, a wide range of instruments are used to target support in the most appropriate manner, taking account of the different characteristics of the various commodities. Payments to primary producers are used in a number of sectors, but there is no Community policy to generalise their application.

  Channel Cod
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of the European Community common fisheries policy as it relates to Channel cod.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Channel cod, like all other significant fish stocks, is subject to a total allowable catch based as far as possible on scientific advice and agreed annually by the Council of Fisheries Ministers. The current TAC of 23,900 tonnes is 70 per cent. higher than it was in 1983, reflecting the exceptional recruitment of the year classes 1985 to 1987. In the last two years we have secured mid-year revisions to the TAC. The quota allocation of the TAC between member states was settled on the basis of historic catches as part of the 1983 common fisheries policy settlement. Overall the shareout was very favourable to the United Kingdom, and for Channel cod we secured a slightly higher percentage than our track record.

  Alternative Land Use
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent steps he has taken to promote alternative land use.

  Mr. Ryder
  We have introduced a range of measures to encourage farmers to seek alternative users for agricultural land. These include the farm diversification grants scheme, set-aside and the farm woodland scheme. Also, ADAS offers advice to farmers on the options for alternative uses of their land. In January, we made available, (through Her Majesty's Stationery Office), "Planning Permission and

  CAP expenditure

  Year on year increase in real terms

  CAP expenditure as per cent. total EC expenditure

  United Kingdom receipts under the CAP

  Conversion rates

  mecu

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  £ million

  1 ecu equals

  1973

  3,805

  1,912

  —

  82

  63

  0·502321

  1974

  3,230

  1,647

  -25

  75

  112

  0·509803

  1975

  4,708

  2,637

  +26

  78

  347

  0·560026

  1976

  5,796

  3,603

  +10

  77

  213

  0·621578

  1977

  7,123

  4,656

  +10

  74

  174

  0·653701

  1978

  9,000

  5,974

  +16

  79

  318

  0·663759

  1979

  10,880

  7,064

  +8

  76

  384

  0·649236

  1980

  11,943

  7,232

  -3

  73

  569

  0·605540

  1981

  11,581

  6,449

  -13

  65

  666

  0·556891

  1982

  13,077

  7,294

  +2

  64

  756

  0·557801

  1983

  16,637

  9,759

  +17

  69

  1,085

  0·586581

  1984

  19,093

  11,150

  +7

  73

  1,310

  0·583969

  1985

  20,544

  12,081

  +1

  73

  1,187

  0·588051

  1986

  23,028

  14,919

  +10

  67

  1,343

  0·647851

  1987'

  23,963

  17,237

  -3

  67

  1,321

  0·719320

  19882

  29,158

  19,310

  +17

  67

  1,381

  0 662252

  Sources:

  1973–1986 EC Commission EAGGF Financial Reports.

  1987 Outturn figures.

  1988 Provisional outturn.

  11987 budget year carried 10 months' expenditure.

  21988 budget year carried 11. months' expenditure.

  3Recalculated since 1986 PQ.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the light of the statement by the head of his Department's pesticide safety division and evaluation unit that it would be 10 years before all the pre-1965 pesticides are reviewed, and that this was due to 744
  the Farmer", which was written especially for farmers seeking to diversify. This introductory guide explains how the planning system works and provides advice on presenting a convincing case to planning authorities.

  Farm Slurry
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are open to him to control or advise farmers on the drainage of farm slurry into streams and rivers.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service routinely provides technical advice to farmers on pollution avoidance, and co-operates with water authorities over farm pollution problems in particular localities. 50 per cent. grant-aid is available on a wide range of facilities. My Department is also assisting the Department of the Environment prepare new regulations to set minimum constructional standards for slurry installations.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date the information in his answer of 14 May 1986,Official Report, column 482, concerning the common agricultural policy; and if he will add for each year the conversion rate for sterling in terms of the unit of account and of the market rate for the European currency unit.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  staff shortages and lack of data, he will increase the resources available for this work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The scientific complement of the pesticides data evaluation unit involved in the evaluation and review
  745
  of agricultural pesticides has been increased from 52 at the end of the 1988–89 financial year, to 60. Staffing levels will be kept under review.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the evidence the advisory committee on pesticides considered in deciding about the use of Alar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the evidence considered by the Advisory Committee at its meeting on 20 April 1989. For this meeting the committee received over 30 reports on daminozide and its breakdown product, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), reporting studies on mammalian metabolism, residues in apples,in vitro mutagenicity, subacute toxicity in rats and mice and carcinogenicity in rats and mice.

  Veterinary Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 22 May, by how many posts of veterinary officer grade the state veterinary service was reduced in 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  During 1986 the number of veterinary officer posts was reduced by 12.

  Peat (Alternatives)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is conducting a research into alternatives to peat for horticultural use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  A number of projects for finding alternatives to, or decreasing the use of, peat in the horticulture industry (for instance work on rockwool, hydroponics and using compost additives like bark) have been undertaken by my Department in recent years. Some of this work has already been taken up by growers and it could provide a firm basis for further reductions in usage if this is necessary.

  Game
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the provisions in chapter 1 of annexe 11 of the draft regulation (PVET/2508) which prohibits the killing of wild game in an unacceptable manner or a manner which will cause unnecessary suffering, fall to be considered by majority vote or by unanimity; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on these proposals;

  (2) if the provisions in EEC draft regulations which require game carcasses to be transported in refrigerated trucks to official game processing houses fall to be considered by majority vote or by unanimity; what is the voting procedure for the proposal that game should be inspected within 24 hours of death; and what are the categories of game covered by these particular proposals;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the consequences of field sports in the United Kingdom of the EEC Council draft regulation on game meat and rabbit meat; what is the position of Her Majesty's Government on the draft with particular reference to the post-mortem examinations by official veterinarians of deceased game and rabbits; what
  746
  stage has been reached in the discussion of these proposals; and whether they fall to be considered by majority vote or by unanimity;

  (4) what estimate he has made of the number of game covered by the EEC directive which are shot each year; what is the EEC description or definition of game; and what he estimates would be the additional provision of veterinary surgeons required to implement the proposals.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The document referred to is a working draft for a proposed Council regulation on game and rabbit meat for human consumption. The regulation would be made under article 43 of the Treaty of Rome which provides for decisions to be taken by qualified majority vote.

  The draft provision on refrigerated transport would apply to all wild game but only where considered necessary by national authorities. The provision for inspection within 24 hours of shooting would also apply to all wild game although longer periods for eviscerated game may be permitted. Exemptions from these provisions and from other requirements of the measure are proposed for game sold in small quantities by the sportsman to the consumer or through sales points which are inspected regularly.

  The proposed regulation would apply to all game animals and birds killed for sale for human consumption and which are not already subject to Community legislation.

  Official statistics of the numbers of wild game animals and birds shot each year in the United Kingdom are not collected but estimates made by the game industry are as follows:

  Number

  deer

  80,000

  pheasants

  12,000,000

  duck

  1,000,000

  pigeon

  10,000,000

  partridge

  500,000

  grouse

  500,000

  These figures include large quantities of game consumed or given away by sportsmen which would not be affected by the draft proposal.

  Discussions are still at an early stage and it is too early to make an estimate of the veterinary or other resources which might be required. The Commission is well aware of our view that the present proposals do not take adequate account of the circumstances under which wild game meat is produced. We have already secured some important improvements and will seek to ensure that measures which may be adopted to remove obstacles to trade within the single market do not place unnecessary burdens on game interests in this country.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the British Veterinary Association to discuss animal welfare.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have not met members of the British Veterinary Association recently but my officials are in frequent contact with them.

  Trees
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much coniferous and deciduous
  747
  planting has taken place on farmland in England and Wales since the last Budget; and, of this, how much was subject to the new tax arrangements introduced in that Budget.

  Mr. Ryder
  In the year to 31 March 1989, the Forestry Commission grant aided 1,728 hectares of new planting (752 hectares conifers and 976 hectares of broadleaves) in England and 923 hectares of new planting (710 hectares of conifers and 213 hectares of broadleaves) in Wales on land that was formerly in agricultural use. A total of 2,371 hectares of this planting could have attracted tax reliefs under the transitional arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 1988 Budget.
  748
  The Commission itself carried out 191 hectares of new planting on former agricultural land in England and Wales (159 hectares of conifers and 32 hectares of broadleaves).

  Nitrate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many additional agriculture development and advisory service officers he intends to recruit to visit farms to advise on nitrates in water as outlined in his document "Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme."

  Mr. Ryder
  No decision has been taken on the number of farms which will be visited or the consequential staffing implications, pending adoption of the necessary legislation by Parliament and the outcome of the consultations undertaken on 9 May.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Missiles: Warsaw Pact and NATO
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
How far the Warsaw Pact leads NATO in the number of its short-range nuclear and conventional missiles; what proportion of NATO's 4,600 short-range nuclear warheads would be affected by the elimination of these missiles; and whether they will support negotiations for reducing the numbers of these weapons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact reveals the number of its short-range missiles or associated warheads. Since the Soviet Union claims to have 1,608 short-range missile launchers, while NATO has only 88, the Warsaw Pact probably also has a significant advantage in missiles. We cannot say what proportion of the stockpile would be affected by their elimination.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, if those short-range nuclear missiles were negotiated away, NATO would still have thousands of short-range nuclear warheads in other forms. As the Warsaw Pact has that huge lead in short-range nuclear missiles, is it surprising that every other NATO government wishes to negotiate upon them? Why are the Government holding back?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord goes a little far in saying that every other NATO country wishes to negotiate. There are two main areas where we believe that we have a case to argue. The first is modification. The noble Lord is well aware that the alliance has agreed that, for the foreseeable future, there is no alternative to a strategy of deterrence based on an effective mix of nuclear and conventional forces which will be kept up to date where necessary. The other area is the possibility of seeking agreement on equal ceilings.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the fact that, for 40 years now, the West Germans have been staunch supporters of NATO, and in view of their concern about the short-range weapons on their soil, would it not be very much in the interests of NATO to give sympathetic consideration to their views at next week's summit? Will the noble Baroness press her right honourable friend the Prime Minister to do that very thing?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are in close touch with our allies on this matter. The purpose is of course to reach an agreement acceptable to all
498
members of the alliance. We feel sure that the United Kingdom view will be adequately reflected in the conclusions reached at next week's NATO summit.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind the fact that the British Government are not being asked by their allies to scrap the short-range nuclear missiles, but simply to negotiate upon their reduction? They are not even being asked to agree to the reduction unless there is substantial progress first in conventional disarmament. To divide NATO on that point is very hard to understand.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, our intention in attending the NATO summit next week is to reach an agreement that is acceptable to all members of the alliance.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, if the Warsaw Pact has superiority in short-range weapons, would it not be to NATO's advantage to offer options in terms of the creation of asymmetrical numbers on either side rather than appear to be trailing behind Mr. Gorbachev all the time?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the suggestion on the table is that the Soviet Union should reduce the number of its nuclear weapons in Europe unilaterally to NATO levels. So far, it has undertaken to cut only 24 out of 1,608 short-range missile systems. As I said, the NATO capability is 88. So it is a minimal reduction which we believe is not worthy of serious consideration.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, even if the Soviet Union has not gone as far as we should like, is it not to lose the initiative if we do not propose something beyond what it is proposing and test its sincerity in this matter?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, NATO has already reduced its stockpile of nuclear warheads in Europe by 35 per cent. since 1979. The implementation of the INF treaty will result in further reductions and modernisation of NATO's nuclear weapons will allow still further cuts in the stockpile. So I should not like to agree at all that we are trailing behind.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it seems surprising for the Opposition not to make the suggestion that the Soviets should lower the numbers so that the ratio, which at best is 12:1 against NATO, should be more level? Surely we cannot afford to give one single short-range missile away, more particularly since the Soviets have in the last two or three years modernised all their short-range missiles while ours are out of date and rather short-range with a long procedure time which makes them non-effective. Is it not essential that the gesture now comes in real facts of reduction—not just 24 out of 1,600, but a substantial reduction—if the Soviets want to bring about a balance?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point in relation to the modernisation of the Soviet capability. I agree that

499
arms control negotiations make sense only when the prospective parties share a common goal.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it not true that, had a Labour Government been in office for the last 10 years and not a Conservative Government, this country would by now be almost defenceless? Is it not further true that the likelihood of the Russians reducing anything is minimal?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend may be quite right.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if we did as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggests we would become rather too reliant on nuclear shells fired from 155-millimetre howitzers which are placed very far forward, perhaps only 14 kilometres behind the front line? They are what are called "use or lose weapons". That would make the situation more dangerous both for NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. Operationally, it makes sense to have the most flexible survival systems. It is to that end that we are pursuing our negotiations.

Water Charges
11.8 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to do anything to reduce the price of water for dwelling houses; and, if so, what steps they propose to take.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, our proposals for limiting the level of water charges in future are set out in the Water Bill and the model instrument of appointment of the water and sewerage undertakers, copies of which are available in the Library.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. However, is he aware that, despite what he has said, there are somewhat disturbing reports that some water authorities, in preparation for privatisation, are lowering the standards of pollution elimination and of water purification? Is that not a serious situation that the Minister, via his right honourable friend, should at least examine?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, all those who took part in the Committee stage missed the contribution of the noble Lord when we discussed the matter at some considerable length earlier this week. With respect, I think that the noble Lord has confused water authorities and statutory water companies. So far as concerns the future of prices, they will have to rise in order to meet the higher standards. That is quite different from what happened under the Labour Government when prices rose, investment was cut and pollution increased.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in that case can the Minister say why a figure has been given in those reports which clearly shows that any Briton living in a new house in the next year will find that the water rates will be increased by £800 a year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course it is not right to put a figure on it. I said that water prices and sewerage costs will increase to meet the higher environmental charges. That is why we have brought the Bill before the House—in order to make sure that we can meet the higher standards.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the figure of £800 quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, seems to indicate that he has picked up the figure that was discussed during the debate on the cost of connection, which in future will be thrown on to the developer of a new building, not every year but just once at the time of the original construction?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why all noble Lords who took part in the debates in Committee regret not having the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that I attended all the debates and stayed until the small hours. I still bear the scars. Perhaps I may ask him to deal with the Question in this way, which is surely directed towards the possibility of varying the tariffs in certain circumstances. Perhaps I may remind him that in our debates earlier this week he acknowledged that within the documentation and the model rules there will be scope for variation in tariffs. Can he say something about the freedom and flexibility of the new plcs in the light of their costs and circumstances? What scope do they have for deciding separately and disparately according to their circumstances that they will vary the cost so that supplies of water laid on for the domestic user will be cheaper rather than dearer than those for other users?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not put the same interpretation on the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, as does the noble Lord, Lord Graham. However, it is good to see the noble Lord is still in such fine health. The increases in the prices will come through a basket of water and sewerage undertakers' charges and will be limited to an amount related to the retail prices index—the so-called RPI plus K formula. Charges to individual classes of customers will be prohibited from showing undue discrimination.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the point that there should be no discrimination between different water users was very clearly made in the 1973 Act? Is he further aware that it must be absolutely right to stick to that decision? I hope that he will.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we intend to stick to it, and, with the support of my noble friend, we shall do so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the great knowledge and ability of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, as well as his vast experience in these matters are acknowledged by everyone. However, does the Minister agree that there are a few other specialists and scientists who also know a good deal about this matter? At one time they were providing the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, with some of the information he now possesses. Will the Minister acknowledge their opinion that that £800 for the initial changes takes into account constant repair and maintenance, which is why that price may continue for some years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, I think that that is not the situation. My noble friend put it exactly right.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, with reference to the numerous people who obtain their drinking water and other water supplies from the Highlands of the United Kingdom and have done so for hundreds of years by tapping a variety of wells and using pumps at no cost, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the situation in regard to those supplies of water, which hitherto have been monitored by the local health authority, will remain under the Bill as it is now?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance because of the very important fact that those sources may contain elements that do not conform to the European Community standard. If they do not conform to that standard, the water supply will have to be improved.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what steps will be taken to monitor those supplies?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there will be an increasing number of steps taken to monitor water supplies. We are setting up a new body, the National Rivers Authority, which has an increasingly important role to play and will be able to do much of the work to create the improvements that are badly needed.

Poverty: Definition
11.16 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give the definition of poverty used by the Department of Social Security when considering the level of social security benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale):My Lords, no government of any political persuasion have ever accepted that it is possible to have a simple definition of poverty. There is no doubt that there are and always have been disadvantaged people in society and that is why the Government are
502
monitoring developments to ensure that the vast expenditure on social security is targeted on those most in need. Planned expenditure in 1989–90 will be £51 billion, a rise of over 33 per cent. in real terms since we came into office.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that speaking on television on 28th April last year his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that to have half the average earnings in this country is to be poor? So that is what it means to be poor: to have half average earnings. It is hard to get hold of the exact figures because conveniently the Government stopped collecting them last year. However, does the noble Lord agree that this could apply to about 15 million people who would come into the category of earning half the average wage? Does he agree with the definition of poverty given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not call that a definition. When one compares 1970 with 1985—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in a recent speech used a different time base—the figures show that the poorest one-fifth of families with children received in 1970, using 1985 prices, the sum of £129 a week. In 1985 they received almost exactly the same amount—£128 a week.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the difficulty in answering the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the fact that poverty is not an absolute but a relative concept? Is it not true that what is grinding poverty in the United Kingdom would be regarded as affluence in Bangladesh?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Of course my right honourable friend was making the point in his recent speech that being less well off and being in poverty are two completely different things.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says about the difficulty of having any simple definition of poverty but will he tell the House whether he has any definition at all, and if so what it is?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as my noble friend has pointed out, poverty is relative and depends on where one happens to be, the social conditions, average income and so on.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, following the question put by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and leaving aside any international considerations, does my noble friend agree that so far as concerns this country it is not a statistical matter and it could be argued that here there is less poverty but more misery?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend takes me down a very semantically complex route. It is an even more "semantic" road than that which other noble Lords have tried to make me take during

503
my answers to this Question. One can be rich and miserable as well as poor and miserable. I do not think that my noble friend's question greatly helps the discussion.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in his speech of 11th May, of which I have a full copy thanks to the courtesy of the Minister, the Secretary of State expressed the view that even the poorest one-fifth of families with children spend nearly one-tenth of their income on alcohol and tobacco. Is that the Government's view? Can the noble Lord say what statistical definition lies behind the phrase "the poorest fifth"? Who are the people who comprise "the poorest fifth"? Did the Secretary of State collect budgets from everybody? How did he define "the poorest fifth"? In all courtesy I submit that it is very unfair to many low income families to bandy about such statistics. I know that many of them feel very hurt and deeply offended.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it might surprise the noble Baroness to know that my wife chooses not to have a television at home. That does not make her poor. However, my right honourable friend was seeking to say that, yes, of course, there are those who are less well off in society and they are recorded, as the noble Baroness knows well, in quintiles and deciles. We discover this from such investigations as the family expenditure survey about which I have spoken very recently. These are factual investigations. We are able to quantify therefore the habits and the expenditure and income profile of various sectors of society. I see nothing wrong in that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that to use benefit levels as the definition of poverty is misleading and intellectually disingenuous, and only serves to hamper the Government's attempt to target resources to those truly in need?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, I would certainly agree. If, as we are frequently asked, we increase the capital levels for housing benefit, income support, family credit and so on, that would immediately mean that more people came into the categories of potential beneficiaries for those benefits. If that happens, some people—certainly not I or my right honourable friend—would describe more people as being in poverty. That must be rubbish.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while it is not possible to define poverty for some of the reasons that have already been given, it is in practice necessary for any government to define minimum living standards in order to have any sum fixed for social security payments of one kind or another? That being so, it would be helpful to know on what basis these are calculated and what proportion of them are intended to maintain basic food, clothing and heating and what proportion to cover the costs of more long-term needs to do with furnishings, cookers and so.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in a sense the right reverend Prelate is quite correct. An assessment has to be used every year in order to decide the level of the various benefits. However, the sixth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee in 1988 said that there is no universally accepted way of assessing the adequacy of benefits, particularly supplementary benefit, which is designed specifically to help those in greatest need.
The Government accept that the levels of income support are not over generous but consider that they provide for an adequate standard of living. There is no evidence that people generally are unable to manage. If they were unable to manage of course we would see real poverty in the land in the sense that I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, was trying to point out in her supplementary question.
Lord Carter: My Lords, while it is hard to define poverty, can the Government say why they discontinued last year the collection of statistics that related the number of families on low income to benefit scales?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that I understood the question. Did the noble Lord ask why the Government persist in keeping records of——
Lord Carter: My Lords, why have the Government discontinued the collection of statistics which were collected for a number of years? Last year the Government decided to discontinue the collection of information that would have enabled them to identify the families on low incomes and relate those numbers to benefit scales.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, statistics must be meaningful at the time that they are used. Some types of surveys and statistic gathering efforts are indeed meaningful at the time that they are carried out. However, a few years later, or earlier, they would not have been. That is why the Government have started a new statistical gathering base.
Lord Morris: My Lords, with regard to the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, must there not necessarily be a considerable number of people below half the average income because, if there were any less, all that would happen is that the average would go up?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right. That is why it is impossible to have a definition, for example, of poverty, of less well off people, or of disadvantaged people where the goalposts are constantly moving.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this conversation, especially as we shall be discussing social security during the next business. However, I should like to ask the Minister one question arising from what he said about changing the statistics. If one is studying these matters one wants to know the trend. If one has altered the method of taking the statistics, what was collected 10 years ago does not tell one much about today. But one wants to track

505
trends. Are the Government doing anything to ensure that we can seriously study trends?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful to reply in terms of the unemployment statistics that the noble Baroness knows very well. Each time the statistical method is changed and there are different rules—for example, for claiming unemployment benefit—a calculation is made using the new method of statistics, back dated. One can therefore see a trend. Exactly the same thing is happening with social security statistics.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I apologise for having to rise again. Perhaps I may correct the point that was made by the noble Lord opposite. I referred, as did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to half average earnings. Is the noble Lord aware that he confused the average with half the average?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it does not matter whether the reference is to half, whole, three-quarters or a quarter of the average. The goalposts would still be moving.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in the new methods of statistical collection, will the increase in debt among the poor be taken into account? I understand from citizens' advice bureaux that they are dealing with more and more debt problems of people who are afraid to go to the social security social fund for loans and grants because of the implication that that carries. They are incurring debts outside the social fund.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, indeed. The Government are well aware of this. I hope that the noble Countess will do everything to correct the impression that she has gathered from some of the people to whom she talks and who advise her. The advantage of a loan from the social fund is that it is interest free.

Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
11.27 a.m.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Wesleyan Assurance Society Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Water Bill
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 4,

Schedule 2,

Clause 5,

Schedule 3,

Clause 6,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 7 to 23,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 24 to 69,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 70 to 74,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 75 to 78,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 79 to 110,

Schedule 7,

Clause 111,

Schedule 11,

Clause 112,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 113 to 127,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 128 to 131,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 132 to 135,

schedule 15,

Clause 136,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 137 to 140,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 141 to 150,

Schedule 18,

Clause 151,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 152 and 153,

Schedule 20,

Clauses 154 to 157,

Schedule 21,

Clauses 158 to 166,

Schedule 22,

Clause 167,

Schedule 23,

Clauses 168 to 184,

Schedule 24,

Clauses 185 to 188,

Schedules 15 to 27,

Clauses 189 to 192.— (The Earl of Caithness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Bill
11.29 a.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I wish to take this opportunity to

507
thank noble Lords who spoke and who helped with this Bill. I should especially like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, whom I see is sitting in his place, and the Minister in the other place, Mr. Needham, for their support for these measures which were initiated by the Reverend Martin Smyth.
I am sure that there are many other pressing Northern Ireland matters that could usefully benefit from similar co-operation and reasoned support.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Blease.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I hope your Lordships will grant me the indulgence of a few seconds, to say how the Government wish to pledge our entire support for the Bill which has been led through your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I doubt that anyone would dispute the worthiness of such a Bill. The Bill has been supported enthusiastically by everybody, both in this House and in another place. The approval, the encouragement and what has been said on the Bill here and elsewhere reflects the aims of the Bill. But as your Lordships know, the success of a Private Member's Bill does not necessarily rest on its worthiness, because success in steering such a Bill through your Lordships' House, let alone another place, requires a great deal of background, hard work and diligence. I want to take this opportunity of recording once again our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for all that he has done, together with the work that has been done by the honourable Member for Belfast, South.
The disabled people in Northern Ireland will be heartened by the interest that has been shown in the Bill, in your Lordships' House and in another place. My final wish is a personal one. It is that the Bill will prove effective in meeting the objective of all who have so ably supported and sponsored it. This objective is that of helping to improve the quality of life of disabled people in Northern Ireland. I would add to our support everything that has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, as well as what was said in another place.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have no wish to add to or to modify in any way the speech which I made on Second Reading. We on this side welcome the Bill. I urge the department to ensure that its provisions are applied without waiting for a lead from a London-based department. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for having introduced the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed.

Social Security Bill
11.32 a.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is by no means a long Bill, but it is no less important for that. The social security system needs to be kept constantly under review, as it deals with
508
needs and circumstances which are constantly changing. Our duty as a government is to ensure that we are aware of such changes and act accordingly. Solutions which were found for the problems of years gone by may no longer be relevant. This Government have the will to challenge outdated attitudes and to take social policy in this country into the 1990s. The Bill helps us to continue that process and it introduces the reforms to contributions and benefits announced in the Budget speech.
I am sure there will be general agreement that one of the more marked areas of change in recent years has been in the labour market. Jobs have been created in record numbers and unemployment is falling rapidly. We have now seen 33 consecutive months in which there has been a drop in the figures. The cry from many employers is that there is a shortage of labour. Sometimes they are referring to skilled persons, but by no means always so. In a typical month there are between 600,000 and 700,000 jobs on offer, many of which can be taken up by people with no specialist skills and without the need for specialist training.
But more than that, each vacancy is an opportunity for those who are unemployed to gain the self-respect and independence that comes from supporting themselves and their families by their own efforts. The Government believe that it is their duty to help those people towards that end, and the important changes to unemployment benefit in this Bill will assist in fulfilling that duty.
It will, I am sure, be common ground which goes right back to 1948 and continued under governments of all political persuasions, that while the state rightly accepts a duty to provide benefit for the unemployed, there shoud be conditions attached to its receipt. While the Government accept the responsibility, as far as is compatible with broader economic aims, to create an environment of enterprise and job creation, they are entitled in return to expect individuals to take the trouble activately to seek work. There was genuine surprise, I believe, when this Bill was introduced, that legislation did not currently require this. I should like to make it quite clear that those powers do not exist at the moment. The decisions of social security commissioners in recent years have made that abundantly clear. Claimants can argue tht if they attend at the Jobcentre and claim benefit every two weeks they have satisfied the present requirements.
It is, of course, the case that the vast majority of claimants take the initiative themselves in looking for work. But recent evidence suggests that this is not true of all. The 1987 labour force survey showed that 730,000 benefit claimants were not taking active steps to seek work, and about half that number were not interested in obtaining any sort of job. A report on the London labour market compiled a year ago reported that over 25 per cent. of the claimants interviewed had not looked for work in the previous week, and, of those, nearly half had not looked for work in the previous four weeks; 5 per cent. had never looked for work at all. The Government believe they have a right to expect all claimants, not just some, to be active rather than passive in their search.

509
Clauses 10 and 13 will therefore ensure that benefit claimants must show that they are actively seeking work. It will clearly depend on the state of the local job market and the particular skills of the individual among other things as to what steps should be taken. Employment service staff will give advice and make suggestions to those who are having particular difficulties in their job search. From time to time they will make further inquiries of the claimant, and if there is any doubt about whether he has been doing all he could, the independent adjudication officer will decide whether benefit is to be paid for the period in question.
The other major proposal for unemployment benefit is to ensure that claimants cannot continue indefinitely to price themselves out of any job they might realistically be expected to get. Newly unemployed people generally start their job search by looking for vacancies in their normal occupation, paying wages at a level they have been used to. That is quite reasonable. But it would be quite wrong for such people to be able to restrict their search to such jobs indefinitely. Clause 12 makes it clear that there will be a "permitted period" during which an unemployed person will be able to escape disqualification for unemployment benefit if he turns down a job which is not in his usual occupation and at his usual wage. This period will not be of more than 13 weeks' duration, but will be decided on an individual basis, and will depend on the state of the labour market and the skills and experience an individual can offer.
I should make it clear that individuals will not be forced into genuinely inappropriate jobs. There will continue to be the facility for an individual to decline a job on grounds of "good cause"—which covers factors such as health, family circumstances, religious belief, travelling difficulties and so on. But after the permitted period, an individual will not be able to turn down, solely on the grounds of pay, a vacancy which has been offered to him by the employment service.
Included in Clause 12 is a further measure to encourage unemployed people in their search for work. There are very real fears among many, particularly after a lengthy period of unemployment, of taking any sort of risk in trying out a job which they have not done before. One of the obstacles has been that if a job does not work out and the claimant leaves voluntarily, he may be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit. We therefore intend that anyone out of work for at least six months can be sure that he can leave a job voluntarily without fear of disqualification, provided that he has given the job a fair trial. We also intend to protect those receiving transitional protection on income support, so that they do not find themselves worse off as a result of taking such an initiative. I am sure these proposals will be widely welcomed by your Lordships as an imaginative approach to a real problem for some claimants.
At this point I should say just a word about Clause 7 which abolishes from 1st October this year the earnings rule for those receiving state retirement pension. Not only does it fulfil one of the Government's manifesto promises, but it also
510
removes all the restrictions which prevent people enjoying their pension while continuing to contribute to the economy and to their own incomes through earnings. A large number of our elderly citizens will gain from these changes—about 200,000 alone who have, we believe, deferred receipt of their state retirement pension because of the earnings rule. This clause will remove the penalty which has been a major disincentive to elderly people contributing their particular skills and expertise to the economy.
Clause 1 reforms the structure of employees' Class 1 National Insurance contributions, by reducing those contributions for almost all employees and abolishing the steps in the contribution rates between lower and upper earnings limits, and by introducing an initial contribution of 2 per cent. of the lower limit. This reform builds on those introduced in 1985 which cut contributions paid by lower paid workers and their employers. The 1985 reforms were a welcome change for the lower paid, but they had a major difficulty; when a person's earnings crossed the lower earnings limit for National Insurance (£43 a week in 1989–90) he had to pay 5 per cent. of all his earnings; that is £2.15 a week. Under our proposed reforms a person earning £43 a week will have to pay only the small sum of 86p a week as an entry fee for National Insurance benefits. Benefit entitlement will be earned if that small sum is paid throughout the year. But our reforms go further than this because they also improve incentives—particularly for people earning around £75 and £115 a week who can be deterred at present from increasing their earnings to take them over these cliff edges. These reforms have been widely welcomed and I am sure that the House will welcome them too.
The Bill also deals with another feature of the benefit system—one which dates back to 1948. When a person is injured he may become entitled to social security benefits. If liability for that injury can be established as falling to another party, he may receive compensation through the legal system for those same injuries. It may be worth reminding your Lordships of what Sir William Beveridge said in his report in 1942 on the problem of alternative remedies. In relation to industrial accidents he said (paragraph 260):
"Another general principle also is clear. An injured person should not have the same need met twice over. He should get benefit at once without prejudice to any alternative remedy, but if the alternative remedy proves in fact to be available, he should not in the end get more from two sources together than he would have got from one alone".
In recent years the courts have ruled repeatedly in favour of this principle. What this currently means is that payments of a range of benefits simply and directly reduce the amount of compensation to be paid to injured people by defendants. The injured person gains nothing from this arrangement, but ordinary people, paying taxes and contributions, are effectively subsidising defendants and their insurers.
The Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 provided for different arrangements to be made for different benefits.This was a compromise based on the assumption that because of the industrial injuries scheme not many people would claim damages. In those cases, compensation is reduced by 50 per cent.

511
of the value of the benefits to be paid by the State over five years but is retained by the tort feasor. So in these cases too, the taxpayer or contributor is effectively subsidising defendants and their insurers.
Criticism of this inconsistency has been received from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. In presenting our proposals we have adopted two basic principles supported by that committee. The first is that accident victims should not be compensated twice. The second is that the party responsible for the accident should not be able to escape part of that liability at the expense of the taxpayer. That cannot be right.
Clause 22 provides the framework for a scheme whereby the value of benefits paid as a result of an injury up to the point of a legal settlement will be deducted from the compensation due for the same injuries. That sum will then be paid to the department. But your Lordships will be interested to know that the amount recovered from defendants will not include any sums in respect of benefit payments made after the date of the settlement of the claim and that recoveries will be made only in the case of compensation payments above a certain figure.The amount of £1,500 has been mooted but will be reconsidered before the scheme is actually operating. I must stress that a person's actual benefit entitlement is not affected in any instance.
The Bill also breaks new ground in Clause 23, which deals with the question of discrimination in occupational social security schemes. Such schemes will no longer be able to deny access to occupational pensions or pay lower benefits on the basis of sex. The measures in the Bill implement the EC directive and will apply to schemes from 1st January 1993. In broad terms the legislation will override any difference of treatment in occupational pensions schemes, whether relating to membership entitlement, contributions paid by members and employers or the benefits members receive. There are, however, special safeguards for those absent from work for maternity or family reasons. If schemes wish, they may make the changes themselves before the overriding provisions take effect.
Many schemes still have different pension ages for men and women. The Equal Treatment Directive contains a derogation which excepts such differences from its scope and we have incorporated that exception into the Bill.
Clause 3 abolishes the Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund. It is useful to recall that the Treasury supplement has been a feature of the National Insurance scheme since it started in 1948. The scheme originally provided flat rate benefits in return for flat rate contributions paid by insured persons and by their employers. In 1948 the Treasury supplement was essential because contributions on their own could not cover the outgoings from the fund. But the social security system has not stood still since 1948. In 1975 earnings-related contributions were introduced whose yield is buoyant. The income needed to finance contributory benefits has been provided increasingly by contributions and the
512
supplement has been reduced steadily. We now think that it is right to abolish the supplement, the taxpayers' contribution to the fund, and that contributory benefits should be paid for wholly by the contributions which earn entitlement to them. The expenditure on contributory benefits will not be affected in any way by the abolition of the supplement.
The Bill contains other modest but useful amendments clarifying and consolidating existing legislation making it more relevant to today's circumstances. Clause 5 brings social security legislation more into line with family law by extending the liability of parents to maintain children in full-time education up to the age of 19.
The Bill strengthens the link to recent work in the test for requalifying for unemployment benefit in Clause 11 and takes account of the great success of personal pensions in the abatement of unemployment benefit which operates for other occupational pensioners aged 55 and over in Clause 9.
Clause 19 deals with the ramifications of the repeal of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. It is necessary to ensure that sanctions remain against unauthorised disclosure of personal and private information in the social security field.
Clauses 6 and 8 deal with widows' and mobility allowance respectively. Clause 6 extends entitlement to widows' benefits under the pre-reforms legislation to all women widowed before 11th April 1988. Clause 8 extends the upper age limit for payment of mobility allowance from 75 to 80. This allowance is an important ingredient for the quality of life for severely disabled people and its extension will enable its oldest recipients to make plans for meeting their future mobility needs. This is an interim measure until consideration can be given to the reports following the surveys carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
In conclusion, my right honourable friend has, as he has promised, been monitoring the 1986 Act changes and continued to review the whole of social security law and practice. I believe this Bill promotes a more coherent social security system and reflects the environment of a modern labour market. It challenges difficult issues—the anomalous relationship between benefits and awards of damages, differing treatment of men and women in pensions schemes and the outdated funding of the National Insurance scheme. But, most of all, it reinforces what we believe the social security system is all about: supporting those who cannot support themselves, and encouraging people to accept the responsibility to support themselves and families by their own efforts. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
11.48 a.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the House will wish to thank the noble Lord for setting out so clearly some of the implications of the Bill. I agree, as do many of my noble friends, that in the field of social security there should be continuing review and

513
improvements in order to meet the changing times. My main criticism of the Bill is that it does not make improvements, except in one or two small instances.
We welcome Clause 7, which abolishes the earnings rule for pensioners. However, I must ask why that will not come into effect until October. Many people may not live that long and they will be denied the benefit.
The other pleasant measure of agreement that we have is about the change of age for the mobility allowance. There again, I must ask why the age should be fixed at 80. I can imagine that an old gentleman of 79 would adore his mobility allowance and having, as the Minister said, the quality of his life enhanced thereby. But that poor old man reaches his 80th birthday and the chopper falls. That is cruel. Why should that measure not apply to old ladies and old gentlemen when they reach their 80th birthday at a time when they most need help with mobility?
I also believe that we should re-examine, and perhaps in Committee we shall be able to do so, some of the criteria for the mobility allowance. Many of us feel—and I have had consultations with many people in this sphere—that there is too much emphasis on physical immobility and perhaps not enough on people who need help with getting about because of psychiatric or other problems; for example, poor sight or hearing and other difficulties.
I then have to come to less friendly words. In 1986 we were told that there were fundamental changes to be made in the whole system, the greatest shake-up since Beveridge, and that that would put everything right. It is extraordinary how many changes have been brought in since that long and seemingly endless Bill went through this House. Since then, the department has been divided. That is something which I happily agree with. I never agreed with merging health and social security even when my friends in another place carried that through. We have had a series of revisions, statutory instruments and orders galore.
We are now told—and I hope that the Minister can enlighten the House because we have to learn so much of the Government's plans from the press nowadays—that there are plans for private agencies to take over the payments to applicants. I am worried, as are many people, about what is to happen to the present staff and how the new staff will be appointed. What is the reason to think that people employed by private agencies will behave any better than the overworked, underpaid and often tormented staff in the offices at present? I conclude that this is a matter of philosophy and that this Government are even prepared to privatise poverty.
Instead of dealing with some of the fundamental problems which disfigure society, the Bill seems to me to lose a considerable opportunity of helping people who most need it. I do not agree with the noble Lord that we should welcome the abolition of the Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund. During the lifetime of this Government the Treasury supplement has been reduced from 18 per cent. of contributions to nothing. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that that is because there was so much money in the National Insurance Fund. If
514
there is all this money sloshing around, why not increase the benefits instead of cutting the Treasury supplement, which has been part of the welfare system for a very long time?
I should like to mention one or two situations with which the Bill omits to deal. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware that this week is called by some people "Sleep-out week". A number of young people and adults, under the patronage of the Duchess of Gloucester, are sleeping out in cardboard boxes, not because they are homeless but because they wish to show their concern and solidarity for those people in that position.
I thought that the Minister's speech, to which I referred earlier, was extraordinarily graceless in his remarks about the poverty lobby, as if we had a lot of people trying to make out that matters are worse than they are. Therefore, I shall not give the House the poverty lobby figures but the most respectable Audit Commission figures. In 1979 the Audit Commission said that there were 56,750 known homeless families. In 1988 there are 112,730—and please note that that refers to homeless families. Unknown numbers of single people, the sort of people we see as we go home from this House, have to be added thereto. People who deal with this question at the coalface, as it were, and who try to help are all convinced that changes in social security and the board and lodging arrangements and the reduction in housing benefits contribute largely—I shall not say entirely—to that problem.
The Minister referred to the necessity of encouraging people to get jobs, to go to work and to take whatever chances there are. I have talked to some of those people. They do not feel that they can, with any prospect of success, present themselves at an interview the day after they have been sleeping out in their only clothes in the rain in the park at night. They suffer a loss of social security because they do not always have an address, and employers always want an address. It seems to me that we are missing an opportunity to deal with a very real deprivation, to say nothing of the dangers which many of those young people encounter in London. We saw a particularly distressing case in the press recently of the result of a young boy wandering about penniless.
There are other problems. The noble Lord and his colleagues often compare life now to 10 years ago. I cannot understand why the social uprating was so far below the rate of inflation. People must arithmetically—and even I can work that out—be worse off. Now with inflation at 8 per cent. the upratings which were established last autumn seem irrelevant to many old people, who have to depend entirely on their state pension, with very little extra help.
In order to refresh my memory I looked at the Conservative manifesto for the last election—and I assure the noble Lord that this is the real one. It states:
"We will continue to maintain the value of the state retirement pension".
How can the value of the state retirement pension be maintained if inflation is at 8 per cent. and the

515
pension goes up less than that? From some of the indications, it looks as though matters could become worse as time goes on.
I shall leave my noble friends who have special knowledge and interests in other parts of this Bill to deal with them. However, on the whole we feel that the clauses which deal with changes in unemployment pay are not in the best interests of the unemployed. The Bill makes fundamental changes. We do not know why Clause 20 of the main Bill is not effectively enforced, because that seems to us much fairer than these rather draconian suggestions which could have—and it may not be the noble Lord's intention—the effect of driving more and more people into low paid jobs.
When the noble Lord said that people would not be pushed into unsuitable jobs, I take that to mean that an out-of-work violinist would not be told to go and be a bricklayer. I hope he can be more specific about that.
My other general criticism of the Bill is that, as with so much government legislation, everything is to depend on orders and regulations. In Clause 1 National Insurance contributions can be altered by secondary legislation. In the clauses covering unemployment pay, we are told that rules will be made and details set out on what, for example, is suitable employment. Therefore, in many aspects of this Bill we are being asked to vote totally in the dark. I suppose that the Bill will be passed, but we shall not know for what we are voting in any detail at all. That happened with the last social security measure and it is happening with far too much government legislation; there are orders and statements and these measures go through without the full understanding of the House and without detailed examination.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will be glad to know that I do not intend to speak about child benefit this morning. I hope that other speakers will. However, I must say from this Front Bench that we greatly regret that there is no provision in the Bill as it stands for the uprating of child benefit. We shall return to that subject in Committee.
I have tried to be fair but I must say that one of the troubles nowadays with so many Conservatives is that they do not read enough Disraeli, particularly his novels. The other night I was re-reading Sybil, which I always enjoy, and I was fascinated to find that in the foreword Disraeli had quoted a statement from Bishop Latimer:
"There never were so many gentlemen and so little gentleness"
I am sure that noble Lords like to think that they are all gentlemen, except for the ladies, but this Government's underlying philosophy seems to be caustic, abrasive, penny-pinching and mean, and I only wish that it were illumed with a little more gentleness.
12.2 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble kinsman Lord Henley on his
516
elevation to the Government Front Bench. We have, therefore, the rather unusual situation of being able to conduct a family quarrel across the Chamber. I think we can both undertake to do so with a discretion suitable to the House. The coincidence extends further than that, for we are both leading on our first Bill. I hope, therefore, that our tale of two noble kinsmen will not in the course of the Bill degenerate into a comedy of errors.
This Bill was described by the Opposition in another place as a curate's egg. That is a description from which we on these Benches would not wish to dissent. I want initially to look briefly at those parts of it which genuinely are excellent. We on these Benches warmly welcome the abolition of the earnings rule for pensioners. We agree with Lord Palmerston that it is not expedient to exclude so many able people from the public service. We welcome the extension of the mobility allowance to the age of 80, but we agree with the question put by the noble Baroness—if 80, why not life?
We also warmly welcome Clause 23 implementing the Brussels directive on sexual equality on pensions. We on these Benches have no difficulty in welcoming directives from Brussels when they are asking us to do something which we think is rather good. We are also pleased that on this occasion the Government are levelling up and not levelling down, as they were in the rather mean little statutory instrument we discussed on Monday night.
There are some clauses about which we have misgivings and which we will pursue further in Committee. Clause 15, dealing with housing benefit, seems to touch on an area where the Government are not altogether letting their left hand know what their right hand is doing. I shall not pursue that now, save only to say that I was delighted to read the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in this morning's Independent. We also have considerable misgivings about Clause 3, which abolishes the Treasury supplement for national insurance.
I take the point made by my noble kinsman that the system has not stood still since 1948, but, by the same logic, why should the system stand still after 1989? I think we are burning our boats for the future. The effect of this clause, with the demographic time bomb waiting for us in the next century, will be to force us to bring in yet further legislation. There are no doubt many noble Lords who view the appearance of an unexpected extra Government Bill in May or June, as it may be, with a great deal of misgiving. That is a prescription for wasting parliamentary time.
I next touch on a few points which are not in the Bill. I do not intend to develop now the argument about child benefit, save only to say that the Government have not heard the last of it. We are concerned also about the income support regulations for the young. Ministers sometimes talk as if it were only social security that enabled the young to leave home and run into difficulties. That is not so. They have been doing that for as far back as recorded history. Indeed, the legend of Dick Whittington is a vital part of the enterprise culture.

517
I agree with what the noble Baroness said about agencies. I hope we shall have an opportunity to debate that subject in the future. I also agree with what she said about homelessness. That is a subject which we shall have the opportunity of debating on 7th June.
The bulk of the argument about this Bill is, of course, concentrated on the question of actively seeking work. We on these Benches are entirely in favour of the principle that the unemployed should be actively seeking work. We accept that there always has been a certain number who may not be. The problem deserves attention. The first point that concerns us is that we thought that this was already the law. We are not certain what it is that the Government want to do that at present they cannot do. I refer, for example, to leaflet UBL 671, which reads:
"Unemployment benefits are payable only to people who are available for work with an employer. We may ask you at any time what efforts you have made to find a job.
Always keep a note of what you have done to find work and jobs you have applied for".
That is perfectly proper. It is known at the moment for claimants to be denied benefit on the ground that they are not available for work. My recollection is that in the past year 101,000 claimants lost benefit for that reason. That is one in 20. If the Government can do that now, what precisely is it they want to do under this Bill that they are not able to do already? I would very much welcome some clarification on that; it might save us a certain amount of time in Committee.
I should like to know also why, among a good many problems about the long-term unemployed, this problem is singled out as a solitary priority for legislation. It is not the only thing wrong. The problem facing the Government is that they came into office with too many top priorities including, in this case, reducing public expenditure and abandoning a Keynesian commitment to full employment. Anyone could have told the Government that their priorities were liable to conflict. There is nothing new about that, of course. Plenty of governments have too many top priorities. However, what really tests the mettle of a government is what they do when they find their top priorities conflicting.
The response of this Government has been to see no evil. It has been to readjust the flow of information in the hope of making the problem appear to go away. That is part of the reason why we have had so many changes in the unemployment statistics. It is also part of the reason why the Government are so interested in explaining long-term unemployment by invoking the concept of the workshy. It is not the whole problem.
There is also here a certain statistical improbability about the Government's case. The latest figures show that we have 1,856,000 registered unemployed and 222,000 declared vacancies at Jobcentres. In a Written Answer, for which I thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that recent research suggests that this is about one-third of the total vacancies. It is not a very confident phrase. This rule of thumb that there are three
518
vacancies for every job at the Jobcentre is only an estimate. But, even if it is correct, it brings us only to the figure that my noble kinsman gave of 600,000 to 700,000 unfilled vacancies. It is a good way short of the total number of registered unemployed.
The Government rely here on the London labour market survey. I have read that interesting survey. It contains some material that supports their case, but in some respects I believe it is a flawed study. It has a very limited range of questions. For example, it has not asked employers whether they are willing to entertain applications from the long-term unemployed, though the report itself commented:
"Employers would be likely to find it easier to fill vacancies if they were to recognise that unemployed people in London represent a valuable asset for both unskilled posts and those requiring skill and experience".
There should have been statistical backing for that statement.
I should also have liked to see an investigation of why 51 per cent. of the London unemployed are single. It is a startingly high proportion. It made me wonder whether we are on the edge of the territory of the Griffiths report which is rapidly becoming a kind of parliamentary Godot. I believe that the working of this Bill may well deserve Lord Burghley's stricture on the Court of High Commission, that it will be rather a device to seek for offenders than to reform any. I also think that this will be yet another Bill which produces numerous unintended consequences. Clearly, it insists on a flow of applications. It abolishes the concept of suitable work, so it is insisting on a flow of unsuitable applications.
If I were an employer receiving this flood of unsuitable applications, I know what I would say and I shall not repeat it in this House. As always when you give people a flood of paper the effect is that they develop a rule of thumb to deal with it. What I fear is that employers will, simply as a rule of thumb, weed out and throw away all the applications from the long-term unemployed. That is exactly the opposite effect to the one that we intend. I also believe that we shall be putting a great deal of pressure on the other good causes—which, I was delighted to hear my kinsman say will continue—for refusing employment. In particular I refer to health.
Unemployment is a considerable psychological shock to a good many people. I do not believe that it is always expedient to call attention to mild psychiatric difficulties. But if that is the only way in which you can go on receiving unemployment benefit, you must do it. People will end up going to the doctor when they otherwise would not. I wonder whether the saving of public funds which is envisaged will be entirely swallowed up in increasing the antidepressants' bill for the National Health Service. I wonder whether we have yet again another case of the Government not letting the left hand know what the right one is doing.
I am also very deeply concerned at the abandonment of the principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, that people may not be compelled to take a job whereby they will become

519
worse off. I know that the Minister will say that at present this only affects 0·15 per cent. of families in receipt of benefits. But the question is whether we can ensure that it stays that way. If this Bill goes through it might very well not. I know that there are considerable problems concerning low-paid jobs and that one cannot avoid a situation where people sometimes take jobs which need subsidy from benefits. But one does not need actually to direct and influence them to do so.
I accept the Government's view that claimants cannot continue indefinitely pricing themselves out of any job that they might realistically be expected to get. But surely that argument applies to jobs as well as to people. If people can price themselves out of the market so can jobs. If a job cannot afford to pay a living wage it is not an economic job. There are circumstances in which the Government may subsidise a job for a particular objective.That must be costed and decided on. What I am not happy about is a blanket Government subsidy for uneconomic jobs. If we get that we may end up repeating:
"The little Inn at Speenhamland That lies beneath the hillIs rightly called the PelicanFrom its enormous bill".
12.17 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, unlike the last two speakers, I find quite a great deal to praise in this Bill. There is one matter that I find very disappointing indeed; that is, the take-up of the social security system benefits. I well remember 24 years ago when I was appointed chairman of a committee looking at the social services as opposed to financial services and social security. We were told early on that if we wanted a successful and effective social service three factors had to be put right.
The first was accessibility. It was no good having offices in basements of town halls and expecting people to go to them. The second was acceptability. People must not consider it shaming to go to these places or that it was something that they did not wish their neighbours to know about, but rather it should be like going to the doctor. The third, and probably the most important of all, was comprehensibility. I believe that we more or less succeeded in putting these three factors right. There is no question about it: when we moved the social services out of the town halls to area units we got people coming and receiving help which they had never had before. The people did so with increasing willingness. I believe that nowadays there is no stigma whatever in seeking welfare services.
I do not believe that this is so with the social security system. I believe it is vitally important, if we are to cure this 40 per cent. non-take-up, to get rid of that situation. We need to have another look at the whole organisation of the social security delivery system. I believe that is something which is not necessarily incorporated in the Bill. The recommendations to the Seebohm Report, if I may call it that, on this subject were not enacted but they
520
were willingly accepted. I do not know whether they can be put into the Bill. I suggest that a small committee should be set up ahead of enactment to consider this subject so that we can get over the disappointing level of take-up.
I am afraid that, to me, targeting has become a dirty word. The more we target and take away from other forms of benefit such as child benefit, the more people will be left in the lurch. This brings me to the question of child benefit, which will be long debated in the House before we have finished with the Bill. I was horrified to read in the papers today that the Government's intention is clearly to do away with it. This is disappointing when we know that 98 per cent. plus of child benefit is taken up. Therefore the 40 per cent. who do not receive social security but who ought to receive it in fact receive child benefit.
I should like to make three points on this subject. First, people who receive child benefit are people with young children. They are nowadays in their twenties and thirties. They are not people in a high income bracket. Those on high incomes are broadly speaking in their middle forties and early fifties. Their children have flown. Not everyone with a high income receives child benefit.
Secondly, when child benefit was introduced in 1976 it was welcomed by all sides of both Houses. It was not costing the country anything. People said that it would cost £4·5 billion. In point of fact, by abolishing children's tax allowance for the husband and abolishing family allowance an amount equivalent to the amount dished out in child benefit was saved. In other words, it was simply a question of transferring money from the husband to the wife. That is not quite true today because personal taxation has been so heavily reduced, but to say that it is costing £4·5 billion is a red herring.
Thirdly, it is always necessary in society to make some redistribution of income from top to bottom by taxation or other methods. It always has been and always will be. The other day I heard an economist give a lecture in which he pointed out that since 1979, thanks to the increase in prosperity and much lower taxation, the top decile—if that is the correct word—of our population has received in real terms a 70 per cent. increase in incomes. The bottom decile has received an increase in real terms of only 13 per cent. The difference between the two has grown enormously over the past 10 years. Child benefit is an absolutely ideal way of redistributing from those who have a lot to those who have very little. I am afraid that we shall have a battle on child benefit and that I shall be in the middle of it.
Much of this matter is technical and there will be many amendments. I should like now to refer to pensioners. One absolutely first-class idea is the abolition of the restriction on earnings by pensioners. This will make an enormous difference, particularly with the demographic change taking place which will result in a shortage of skilled labour. People will continue to work after 65 and will use their skills to the age of 70 or more. Therefore a close look at the system of paying pensions is needed. People who go on working should be able to go on contributing voluntarily to the national insurance fund so that they receive larger pensions if they retire

521
at 70 than if they retire at 65. There are bound to be some serious amendments to the Bill in regard to pension arrangements.
I welcome the Bill as a whole, but we shall have to look at certain matters very carefully indeed. The delivery system will have to be looked at extremely carefully. I hope that my recommendation will be given some consideration.
12.24 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is indicative of the inflationary tendency of modern legislation in respect of length that, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Henley should say that a Bill which in fact includes 33 clauses and nine schedules, many of them massive, was not a very long Bill. Compared with some other measures with which your Lordships' House has to deal, that is of course relatively true, but it is a substantial Bill and it is simply due to the extraordinary habit of the parliamentary draftsman today of drafting at such immense and meticulous length that my noble friend is led to suggest that it is not a long Bill. It is quite a long Bill; it is also a very important Bill. It is of more importance to the ordinary citizen of this country than any of the other measures which we have been discussing this Session. It is a Bill that really matters in far greater degree perhaps than whether water or electricity should be in private or public hands.
I am happy to begin with two measures of agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. First, I very much agree with her commendation of Disraeli's novels, of which I am also very fond. I support her recommendation that your Lordships should read them. Many have much relevance to problems of today. Secondly, I join her in asking my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale when he replies to explain why the mobility allowance has to terminate at 80. I welcome increasing the age of entitlement from 75 to 80, but is it suggested that somehow—this is perhaps rather encouraging to some of your Lordships—when one reaches the age of 80 one becomes so much more mobile and physically so much more active that one does not require assistance of this kind? If so, I suggest to my noble friend that he consults his colleague the Secretary of State for Health to see whether that is really borne out.
In all seriousness, it seems curious that this allowance—the noble Baroness is right in saying that it is very much appreciated by a number of recipients—should be terminated at 80 instead of being made indefinite. There may be some good reason. The last thing I would wish to do is to be dogmatic about it, but I should like my noble friend when he replies to explain this point.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm—I nearly called him my noble friend because in everything except the technical sense I am glad to think that he is—I disagree with him over targeting. Targeting is a crude and rather inappropriate word, but what it aims to say is surely right. If one is to raise large sums of money, either by way of contribution or by way of taxation, in order to help
522
relieve social need, it is desirable to concentrate it as much as possible where that social need is the most acute.
I shall not open up with the noble Lord—tempted as I am—the question of child benefit except to say that I thought he was a little dogmatic. He suggested that child benefit could not be going to wealthy people because one does not become wealthy until one is 40 or 50 and by that time one's children are off one's hands. In truth and in fact, if my noble friend takes a look at the City of London today he will see that many people in their late twenties and early thirties earn very large sums indeed and, also to their credit, have young families Therefore he cannot ride off the criticism that child benefit goes to those who do not need it as well as those who do by saying that not many people on large incomes are entitled to it. I should be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has to say, but as a matter of ordinary experience, with respect, the noble Lord is wrong.
The Bill embodies a great many of the changes that have taken place through the years. Some noble Lords may feel that not all are for the good. One change which is definitely not for the good is the attitude which people now adopt to the National Insurance contribution. In the now remote days when I had certain responsibilities in the matter, the National Insurance contribution was paid by way of a stamped card—at any rate for the Class 1 contribution—and for that reason most people realised that they were contributing towards a very useful, well subsidised insurance. They were in fact getting better value than they would have received from any private scheme.
People realised that the money which they were paying was really contributing to insurance. I doubt, frankly, when the Class 1 contribution is simply deducted with PAYE from people's pay today, whether it is regarded as anything other than a form of tax. I think that that is a pity. It is an extremely useful and valuable institution so far as concerns the individual.
I turn from the changes which have been made to what have been two very familiar features of the National Insurance scheme. First, there is the Exchequer contribution. I think it was always contemplated that when the scheme came to maturity the Exchequer contribution—which was originally included because, if you start an insurance scheme, it will always be in quite heavy deficit and will have had no chance of accumulating balances—would be phased out. After all, the scheme has now been operating for about 40 years, which is full maturity for an insurance scheme. Moreover, I have no doubt that the phasing out of the Exchequer contribution is now justifiable. When I say that, I recall, rather guiltily, that when I was involved ministerially at one time I fought very hard for the Exchequer contribution. I should add, however, that when I changed over to the Treasury my attitude seemed, curiously enough, to adopt a certain modification. But, looking at the matter now, I think that the time has come to finance the scheme out of the contributions from employers and employees and also from the self-employed, and that to finance

523
it directly from taxation has probably very little justification.
The other matter—although I suppose I am probably alone in the House in taking this line—is the end of the earnings rule. I am frankly sorry to see this. That does not derive just from the fact that I had to defend it for many years. One acquires, does one not, a certain affection for any institution which one finds it necessary continually to defend in public? But there is more to it than that.
One of the advantages of the earnings rule is that it encourages a person not to retire for the first five years after retirement age. It encourages them to continue at work and contribute and thereby accumulate rights to a larger pension when he or she does retire. That is quite a valuable stimulus. Indeed, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, was getting precious near agreement with me on that point at a certain part of his speech. Surely if people are fit for work and want to go on working, it is much better for them to be building up a higher pension for when they have to retire than drawing a pension on top of their earnings.
It is true to say that abolishing the earnings rule takes away a certain incentive to defer retirement and accumulate a higher pension. Of course I recognise that, as this measure was in the party's manifesto and as the Conservative Party on the whole prides itself on carrying out its manifesto promises, it had to go. However, I think that it was a mistake to put it in the manifesto. I am also conscious of the fact that I am probably in a minority of one in being rather sorry to see it go.
On the other hand, I very much disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about Clause 23. This clause results from one more of those niggling interferences of the Brussels Secretariat with our own internal affairs, which are really of no concern to that body. It is a particularly good example of the difficulties and considerable trouble which interference by people who know very little about the way our institutions work can cause.
Many major companies which pride themselves on their occupational pension schemes allow retirement on the occupational pension, especially in the case of men, well before the age of 65. If they have—indeed, as most of them now have—equality in their occupational scheme between men and women, that could mean in the case of retirement at the age of 63 that the woman is receiving the occupational pension, plus the National Insurance pension, while the man is not. Therefore the woman is receiving a substantially bigger total pension entitlement than her male colleague.
Consequently what happens is this. As I understand it, it is the practice at present of a considerable number of our major and most respectable and reputable companies to pay the man until he reaches the age of 65 a higher rate of occupational pension than the woman. The net result is that the combined pension entitlement over that period of the man and the woman is the same, although the make-up is different, for example, in
524
the case of the woman one of the elements being the National Insurance pension.
The Brussels Secretariat comes happily along with EC Directive 86/378 and in the name of equality appears to suggest that this arrangement should go. But of course it is not producing equality. If the same occupational pension is paid in those circumstances to the man and the woman, and the woman is also receiving the National Insurance retirement pension, the net result of that effort to impose equality is in fact to impose inequality. That, with respect, is a great nonsense and one which is very much resented.
I have been put in touch with one or two of these major companies by companies which have a very good reputation for intelligent and humane pension schemes. I should like to put to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who is to reply the question of whether we are bound to go along with this proposition. There is some derogation already from EC Directive 86/378. It seems that if we are to impose inequality in pensions simply because the European Commission is incapable of understanding our system, that will not only cause considerable injustice but will also increase the resentment—which I think already exists in considerable degree in this country—at the interferences to which we are being subjected from that quarter. I should like my noble friend to consider the matter most seriously.
The issue was raised, as I understand it, in the other place. There many honourable Members attacked this imposition of inequality with considerable vigour. I should be inclined to suggest to my noble friend that, if he is not prepared to make some conciliatory noises about the matter at this stage, it may well be that there will be a repetition of that state of affairs at the Committee stage in this House.
There is also the fact that this matter inevitably raises wider issues. Part of the problem arises because this country and Portugal are the two countries in the EC which have different retirement ages for men and women. There has often been pressure to equalise them, but always to equalise them by giving the men entitlement at the age of 60. The cost of that would be enormous and the social justification very small. I say that because, thanks to modern medicine, the great majority of men in their sixties are not only working but are also perfectly capable of so doing. Therefore to impose this large additional burden on the National Insurance Fund—that is, equalising at 60—would be quite unjustifiable.
At the same time, to equalise retirement ages at 65 presumably would not be wholly acceptable to the women's organisations. When I was Minister, we looked at the problem that arose, and wondered whether some compromise of having, say, 63 as the age for both would not be sensible. The difficulty of that was of course that one would have to give many years' notice; it would be highly controversial; and almost certainly some government that came in during the transition period would halt the transition. It did not therefore seem worth doing.

525
This intervention by Brussels, and the ridiculous result that it produces, is at risk of stirring up this issue and will raise difficult issues for Her Majesty's Government.
I welcome Clause 19. It is wrong that any officer of my noble friend's department who in that capacity has knowledge of people's individual circumstances should give publicity to them. It is right that it should be made an offence to do so. I was glad to see that clause.
I shall only be brief on the unemployment benefit point. The provision as proposed in Clauses 10 and 12 is right. I was rather amused when the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in the context of Clause 12, referred to the possibility of an unemployed violinist being offered a bricklayer's job. I suppose that she appreciates that that would greatly increase his income, because the rate of remuneration would be a great deal higher and he would be extraordinarily foolish if he did not accept it. But that is by the way.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, it would be bad for his fingers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as to the justification, the indication given by my noble friend Lord Henley as to the way the matter would be handled of, first, keeping open the question of whether an unemployed man should have to accept a less well-paid job for a bit but not allowing someone, because they have once been well-paid, permanently to refuse anything at a lower level, is to be welcomed.
The only other point with which I wish to deal relates to contributions. It is a good improvement. In the days when I was concerned with those matters, there was a flat-rate contribution. I was responsible for introducing for the first time a graduated contribution. That was described from the Opposition Front Bench in another place by that lovable character Dick Crossman as "the Boyd-Carpenter swindle". It was of course followed in the next Parliament by a great increase in the graduation, about which Mr. Crossman had been so unkind when I introduced it. We probably have got the contributions about right, although the contributions demanded of people on high earnings are very high indeed. It is to be remembered that, although one may not sympathise unduly with a man on high earnings, in many jobs today people earn those high rates for only a limited time and have in that time to provide for the whole of their lifetime. I wonder whether we have not taken the contribution on the top earnings rather too high.
I want to ask one question on Clause 25 which relates to war pensions committees. War pensions committees have existed since the 1914 war. As far as I know, they have functioned satisfactorily. When I was involved, they were the most useful, public spirited and sensible bodies with which one could deal. Will my noble friend explain why it is suddenly necessary in Clause 25 to legislate about war pensions committees, excellent bodies as they always prove themselves to be? It seems curious to be legislating about them at a time when the people they are concerned to look after (the war pensioners) are, happily from some points of view, less
526
conspicuous in numbers than they were some years ago.
I have given a general welcome to the Bill. It is right, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, that from time to time this important scheme which touches the lives of all our fellow citizens should be reviewed, that improvements and changes should be made which derive from experience and that the scheme should generally be kept up to date. The Government are to be commended on facing the considerable task which that involves. They face the risk of having all sorts of amendments of a difficult character proposed on such a subject. I wish my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale the best possible luck in the considerable number of days' additional work that the Bill will involve for him.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as a number of your Lordships have said, the Bill brings in yet more changes to the social security system. For that reason, it should perhaps be judged not only on what it contains but on how it measures up against the many real problems which beset so many of our people. I shall give a few examples: the 1 million disabled people who are now worse off than they were before the 1986 Act; the 9.5 million people (one-sixth of the population) living at or below income support level (an increase of 55 per cent. since 1979); pensioners who are now in total £6 billion per annum worse off as a result of breaking the link between earnings and pensions. The Government take considerable credit for the £14 billion surplus in the public sector which is being used to repay the national debt. We should remember that almost half of that figure has come out of pensioners' pockets. There are the 570,000 claimants who saw no increase in their cash income in the recent upratings, and the 530,000 claimants who received less than the full increase.
The anomalies in the law and regulations, which we have discussed in the House on a number of occasions, mean that many disabled people with the same disabilities and living costs, receive widely differing amounts of benefit, depending upon the way in which the disability was caused, and the hundreds of thousands who are suffering from the arbitrary effects of the transitional protection regulations. At the bottom there is the 20 per cent. of households which have seen a decrease in their incomes in real terms since 1979; and the 400,000 or more households which, in effect, pay marginal tax rates of 70 per cent. to 90 per cent. as a result of the poverty trap. One could go on giving examples.
Measured against the problems that I have mentioned, the Bill sadly fails to meet any of them. Our consideration of the Bill is of course overshadowed by the recent remarks on poverty by Mr. John Moore and his egregious attempts to define it out of existence, which is of course much the cheapest way to deal with the problem.
What are the facts? I have already referred to the 1 million disabled people who are now worse off than they were last year. It is undisputed that a much higher proportion of disabled people live at, or

527
below, the poverty line, however defined, than in the population as a whole. If low pay is defined as two-thirds of median male earnings, in 1979 there were 8 million people in that category (38 per cent. of the workforce); this year there are 9.9 million (48 per cent. of the workforce). We should consider the problems of one-parent families and the gap in disposable incomes between all households and one-parent households. In 1979, the gap was £29.50 per week; in 1989, the gap is £82.88 per week. Between 1979 and 1986, the top 20 per cent. of households saw a 26 per cent. real increase in incomes. During the same period, the bottom 20 per cent. saw a 6 per cent. decrease in real terms.
We have heard a good deal recently about the Government's intention to set up three new agencies in the DSS to deal with information technology, benefits and contributions. Anything which improves the efficiency of the service to claimants is to be welcomed; but one can only wish that the same reforming zeal had been shown in putting right the many anomalies and injustices of which I have given just a few examples.
There are number of areas in the Bill where amendments will be put down to improve the legislation. I shall refer to only two. The first, referred to by my noble friend on the Front Bench and by other noble Lords, is the urgent need to improve and extend the mobility allowance. There is the quite absurd anomaly that while some disabled people—war pensioners, for example—will receive a mobility allowance for the rest of their lives, for others with exactly the same disability and exactly the same need for help and assistance the allowance will end at the age of 80.
The allowance should be extended to the deaf-blind and those with challenging behaviour who need continued intervention and assistance from another person. This will involve, it is estimated, some 10,000 to 12,000 people, and extending the mobility allowance to them would cost only some £12 million per annum.
There are three criteria for the mobility allowance. The claimant must be unable to walk, virtually unable to walk or have a condition where walking would endanger life. The third category is where there is an underlying physical condition where exertion would bring on a heart attack. That means that anybody who can walk—in other words, can put one leg in front of the other—does not qualify for the mobility allowance. Possibly the most grotesque ruling ever by a tribunal of social security commissioners is the one where it was said of children with behavioural, sensory or physical disabilities that if they could be made to put one leg in front of the other, either by,
"the promise of a reward or the threat of punishment",
then they could not be said to have a walking problem.
Two television programmes, "Who's Being Punished" in 1986, and "United in Fury" in 1987, highlighted a number of cases. There was Kieran who at 14 was so strong that it took four adults to restrain him, who could not be left in the house
528
alone and, when unrestrained in the street, would run into the road. But he could walk and he was refused the mobility allowance. There was Christopher who was deaf-blind and who had the allowance for four years; then he lost it on review although his condition had certainly not changed. There was David, 6ft 4ins., 15 stone, autistic. When he stopped dead, he just could not be moved. The programme also looked at the case of Wayne who, because of the general hardening of attitudes, lost the allowance even though a specialist's report made it clear that he would soon die and any attempt at walking would cause a coronary collapse. But he could put one leg in front of the other, so he was refused the allowance.
The solution is simple and amendments will be put down to add a fourth category to the criteria: those people who can physically walk, but who are not able to make use of the faculty because of severe mental or sensory disabilities. As I have said, estimates put the number of deaf-blind people affected at less than 2,000 and all others—the autistic, the brain injured and so forth—at no more than 12,000.
The complexity of the case law has now reached the point where it is impossible for the ordinary claimant or carer to know whether or not he meets the requirements of the mobility allowance regulations. All the claimants can see is the injustice of a system which may award them mobility allowance one year and then take it away the next, because while their problems remain unchanged and while the regulations remain unchanged there has been an adverse commissioner's decision in between.
There is also the clear injustice that of two people with identical problems, one may receive mobility allowance and the other may not because they made their claims at different times. Those who are now able to make successful claims invariably need skilled advice and representation and it is not uncommon for claims to take a number of years to be resolved. I would argue that surely entitlement to benefit which is intended to give help with such a basic requirement as mobility should not require skilled representation and should not involve years and years of legal wrangling.
The second area of social deprivation which the Bill should be amended to deal with and which urgently needs attention is the provision of appropriate help to ensure that young people under 18 who are not able to live at home receive sufficient income support until they secure a YTS place or a job.
In his recent speech Mr. John Moore referred to poverty in Victorian times. Shelter have pointed out that the combined effects of the social security Acts, the housing Acts and the board and lodging regulations have created youth poverty on a scale not seen here since Victorian times. It is estimated that there are now some 50,000 homeless teenagers in London alone who are caught in a tangle of DSS forms and red tape. That is before the advent of the poll tax next year makes the situation much worse. The recent dreadful case of Jason Swift has been referred to. This shows what awful risks youngsters run.

529
Perhaps we should reflect on the thoughts of one boy who has lived on the streets for as long as he can remember:
"To be hassled and jostled and moved on; and really to feel that it would appear to be perfectly true that I have no business here, or there, or anywhere; and yet be perplexed by the consideration that I am here, somehow too, and everybody overlooked me until I became the creature that I am!"
Those are the words of Joe, the crossing sweeper, in Bleak House, written in 1852. In this respect, Mr. John Moore's comparison with Victorian times may be rather more embarrassing than he expected.
It was pointed out in another place that it used to be the policemen who seemed to be getting younger, but now it is the homeless. We shall certainly wish to put down amendments to improve the lot of the 16 and 17 year-olds who are suffering real social deprivation and who, by any definition, are genuinely poor.
There are many other parts of the Bill which need much improvement and amendment, but time does not allow me to deal with them. Suffice it to say that from this side of the House we shall do our utmost to ensure that at least a few of the injustices with which our social security system is riddled are ended.
12.56 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, this is a very important Bill and we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Henley for introducing it to us so helpfully. I have a pressing engagement later on this afternoon and I therefore hope that, like me, other noble Lords will take only a short time to speak on a few clauses, as is my intention.
This important Bill has 33 clauses and I wish to start my remarks with Clause 4, which details the problems of the widows' benefit. As we all know, there is an unfortunate anomaly regarding women who became widows before 11th April 1988. The reason why I raise this clause is that I am chairman of the Trustees of the National Association of Widows and we have received a great number of inquiries from people worried about the revised benefit package. This affects some 23,000 widows who are caught in the age band. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House whether the anomaly has been rectified and when the adjustment will be implemented. I have not been able to follow the proposal through, although I telephoned the office this morning.
As the House will know, women are most grateful for what they receive—£1,000 on the death of their husbands instead of the extra amount on the widows' pension which they used to receive for the first 26 weeks. As I said, this is very welcome, but most of us know that the cost of burying anybody, whether it is a dear husband or anybody else, has gone up enormously. Most of the £1,000 goes on the funeral. Because the widow has received that money, she is then unable to claim further financial help from the social fund and is very often left in difficult circumstances.
I wish to ask my noble friend this question. I am reliably informed that it may take from six to 20 weeks for the widow's pension to come through. During that time a woman with very limited
530
amounts of money can be in dire straits. She will of course get a job, as we all have to when we are faced with financial problems. However, I hope that the Minister will consider the amount of time it takes for a widow's pension to come through.
Clause 7 abolishes the earnings rule. I am glad that so many noble Lords have drawn the Minister's attention to this very welcome provision as regards the ability of older people to go out to work. Those people will be able to give of their experience, skills and knowledge to fill the gaps which we are told will inevitably arise in a few years, if not now, when there will be fewer school-leavers. That provision will encourage people to do more with their later lives.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I think a great number of people will take advantage of his suggestion, in that they will not take their retirement pension but will live on the money they earn and will therefore receive a higher pension later on. I am sure his words of wisdom will be taken note of.
The extension of the upper age limit for the mobility allowance in Clause 8 is generally welcome for the disabled people affected by it. However, like other noble Lords, I wonder whether an age limit is necessary. I suggest that the yardstick should be a medical certificate. I think it is quite simple to decide whether a disabled person is still able to be in charge of a motor vehicle, for example, without endangering others.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quite rightly talked at some length about one aspect of our modern life, which is the vulnerability of young people. Those who leave home on account of unhappiness, or who leave a local authority environment, and who fall within the 16-to-18 age group are not, as I understand it, entitled to the same financial help as those young people who fall within the 18-to-22 age group. The noble Lord drew our attention to that.
These young people go out alone unto a very hard world. They leave security behind them, however happy or unhappy that security was. As I understand it, the Government want to encourage initiative and encourage young people to find employment outside their home towns. However, they are discouraging them to do this with what I can only call a particularly mean decision to treat those within the 16-to-18 age group differently to the 18 to 22 year-olds. The older ones will probably have had the opportunity of full employment, even if they have also had to follow YTS. These young people are in real trouble. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us some figures.
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us more about whether the Government are going to help young people in the 16-to-18 age group. I welcome this important Bill. After so many hours spent on water, it is almost stimulating to return to talking about people. In my view, your Lordships' House is best at dealing with people. I welcome the Committee stage. I believe that it will be very interesting.
1.4 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, this Bill has been described to me as a ragbag of measures. Some of the rags are good and should be retained, others should be discarded. As with all household ragbags, there is room for more.
I am pleased that the upper age limit for the mobility allowance is to be extended. Over a period of time I have received letters from people who have suffered conditions which affect their mobility after they have reached the age of 65. They have been unable to understand why they have not been awarded the allowance. In my replies I have said that, unfortunately, the cost of raising the upper age limit would be prohibitive, and no government could contemplate it.
At the other end of the age scale, I have been told of a number of cases where claims on behalf of physically or mentally handicapped young adults have been rejected because they are able to walk a short distance and negotiate obstacles on the day they are examined. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, expanded considerably on that matter. No account is taken of the fact that their behaviour may be erratic or unpredictable, and that they need assistance. Would it be possible to introduce more flexibility into assessment of applicants, and to take into account reports from their GPs and social workers at an early stage, rather than when a case goes to appeal?
It is not unreasonable to expect parents who can afford to do so to be financially responsible for their children until they reach the age of 19, or are able to maintain themselves. Most parents do this already. We must not forget that relatively small group of 16 to 17 year-olds who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has just said, are very vulnerable as they have no parental support.
The Government have agreed that young people leaving care should receive income support, but they do not seem willing to accept that those who have left, or who have been thrown out of the parental home because their situation has become intolerable, should be similarly supported. The charities and voluntary organisations which help them have limited means and cannot hope to pick up all the distressed young people who tend to gravitate to the cities. The noble Lord the Minister is well aware of the evils to which they fall prey; he has been told often enough. Why are the Government so reluctant to allow them a little financial security and dignity?
Why do the Government not accept that some 16 to 17 year-olds, who are unable to obtain a place on YTS because a place is not available, should receive income support until a place is available or the young person finds other work? What is the reason for the lower rate of income support paid to 16 to 17 year-olds for their food, clothes and personal needs when they live independently? They do not eat less and are not able to obtain their purchases at a lower price than 25 year-olds. It was said that 25 year-olds have more responsibilities. But now that the housing element has been taken from income support, that argument does not seem to hold water.
532
Other noble Lords have spoken about the higher standard of proof required to show that an unemployed claimant is available for and actively seeking work. I ask the Minister what provision is to be made for those who claim unemployment benefit or income support while they care for sick or disabled dependants. These people, mainly women, selflessly provide round-the-clock care for their relatives, thereby saving the state huge sums in social security benefits. Are they to be penalised because they are not readily available for work?
The Minister will recall that I have asked him before about those who are nowadays classified as having learning difficulties. They may be physically fit. They do not perceive themselves as being unfit for work. They may be in and out of jobs or do casual work. In between jobs they claim benefits, but these are not always paid because the claimant falls foul of the rules. The Minister, in his reply to me, said those people could go to their GP for a certificate of incapacity to work. After my explanation, I found that reply very unsatisfactory. The Minister did not seem to understand that these people are not sick. They are not scroungers, and to maintain their dignity they will go on trying to get work. Cannot special provision be made for benefits to be paid to them during their periods of unemployment? They can be recognised by their work pattern and at interview. I am sure that social reports are also available on them. I shall be most interested to hear what prescribed circumstances the Government intend to introduce.
We should make every effort to persuade the Government to extend attendance allowance to the terminally ill in the first six months of their illness. The Government's excuses for withholding the allowance during that period do not seem reasonable. Both patient and carer suffer unnecessary distress and hardship during this already stressful period. I am growing increasingly sceptical about the efficacy of transitional payments. The Government's promises about special transitional payments to those in receipt of income support who need respite care at regular intervals have been disappointing. Will the Minister assure the House that those who are forced to live in bed and breakfast accommodation with inadequate cooking facilities will be compensated for the loss of the so-called eating out allowance as a result of the changes from income support to housing benefit which took place last month?
Finally, perhaps I may ask the Minister why it is that, when a claimant's circumstances are suspected not to be as claimed, benefits are immediately withheld and are not restored until a decision is made by an adjudication officer, a tribunal or a commissioner. I cannot think of any other situation in English law where an individual is judged guilty until proved innocent. There has been some improvement in the length of time taken to resolve cases, but it is still far too long. Can anything be done to reduce the time involved?
I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's response and to the ensuing debate as the Bill passes through its various stages in this House.
1.10 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, this is the thirteenth major social security Bill since 1979. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, quite rightly took the Minister to task for calling it a small Bill and almost underplaying it. It is in fact a fairly hefty Bill. Although not as hefty as Bills on some other subjects, this legislation contains enough meat in one clause to occupy quite a number of clauses in any other Bill. I do not see any justification for the underplaying by the Government of the Bill.
Over the same period there have been scores of circulars, directives, instructions and regulations arising from the Bills and from various reviews. So the system is literally under constant, almost daily, review, not always for the best reasons. My noble friend Lady Jeger has mentioned the Government's pledge to simplify the system. It is my view that they have complicated the system. It is now far more complicated than it was when they made that pledge. There are more forms to fill in, more interviews, more questions, more means tests, more penalties and very often less benefit. There is certainly more confusion among people who should be able to understand the system but do not.
All those Bills have had the same objective—to save money by reducing benefits and to use the reductions to finance tax cuts, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. Most of the Bills have been guillotined in the other place and pushed through the House. In this House, it is becoming quite common for such Bills to be almost the last item on the agenda. We used to call it "Any Other Business"; now we have social security Bills.
As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, the Bill is a mish-mash. Like the others, it has everything in it: it is a very confused set-up. I should like to spend a few moments on some of the issues. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome some items. I wonder why they are in the Bill when we have already welcomed them. We have, for instance, paid our due respects to the ending of the earnings rule. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that this was part of the Conservative manifesto and had to be implemented. I shall not embarrass him by saying how long ago it appeared in the manifesto and how long it has taken to honour the pledge. But it is a fairly long time since the Conservative party first gave that manifesto pledge.
I welcome the moves towards equal treatment for men and women in occupational pension schemes, albeit following an EC directive. I welcome, too, the lifting of the age barrier for mobility allowance. I share, however, the reservations of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, on the age limit of 65. I have never understood why the present rules create the ludicrous anomaly whereby someone who becomes disabled the day before his or her 65th birthday may receive mobility allowance for the next 10 to15 years, but someone who, with the same injuries, becomes immobile the day after his or her 65th birthday receives no benefit whatever. It seems to me that that anomaly should have been rectified when mobility allowance was discussed. Having said that, I understand that the Government have
534
acknowledged that that extension is an interim measure and that there will be further reports when the six surveys by the OPCS on disablement have been completed. Can the Minister say when he expects the final reports of those surveys? That might be a more appropriate time to discuss the anomaly that I have mentioned.
I have fairly strong reservations about other proposals in the Bill, but I do not have time to deal with all of them. One reservation concerns the abolition of the Treasury supplement outlined in Clause 3. Unlike some noble Lords, I do not welcome that change. I take it that those proposals represent the final stage of a process that began in 1981; namely, the erosion of the Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund. The National Insurance Fund pays for unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, widow's benefit, maternity allowance and retirement pensions. The fund is supposed to operate on a day-to-day pay-as-you-go basis, but the Government have found it to be a more convenient source of income.
The Beveridge Report of 1942 originally envisaged a tripartite scheme of contributions under which the national exchequer would pay a third of the costs of unemployment benefits and one-sixth of the costs of pensions, disability and maternity benefits. The Treasury supplement fluctuated over time, but, in the mid-1960s, it settled down to about 18 per cent. and in 1975, it was fixed at that. In 1980, the then Chancellor announced that the supplement would be reduced from 18 per cent. to 14.5 per cent., thus shifting an extra heavy burden on to those who could least afford it—those on low or average pay. Since then, the Treasury supplement has steadily dwindled until the current year when it stands at 5 per cent. We are now told that it will be abolished altogether.
The Government justified the change as a triumph of a healthy growth in incomes. But what are the facts? For some years now, the fund has taken more in contributions than it has paid out in benefits. That is because, while contribution income automatically rises in line with average earnings, benefit payments are uprated only in line with prices. For instance, this year, the old age pension has risen by 5.9 per cent., but the increase in prices is currently running at 8 per cent. So it does not always follow prices. It has certainly not followed income for a long time. Therefore, the difference between the two has meant massive profits for the Treasury. Last year, it was estimated that the profit amounted to £3,000 million, not because of good management, growth in employment or because the economy is booming, but because the Government had reduced payments to claimants and pensioners. Instead of using the profits to increase benefits or to reduce National Insurance contributions, or both, they simply embarked on a programme of tax cuts, mainly to people who did not need them, using the money taken from pensioners to finance them.
Pensioners have an unanswerable moral case for revolt. They do not have any industrial muscle with which to implement it. But they do not underestimate their strength. They have an increasing awareness of their electoral muscle. I

535
predict that the confidence trick which has again been perpetrated against them by an insensitive Government will not go unpunished.
I should like to say a few words about the nub of the Bill; that is, Clauses 10, 12 and 13 which contain the real reasons for the measure. Those clauses tighten up even further the criteria of whether or not a claimant is genuinely, involuntarily unemployed.
An article in the Independent towards the end of December by its social services correspondent summed it up:
"The unemployed will be required to prove that they are actively seeking work each week—writing job applications, registering with employment agencies and applying for advertised jobs, with officials checking with employers if necessary—under the Government's Social Security Bill published yesterday…In addition, after 13 weeks, and probably less in areas with large numbers of unemployed, they will no longer be allowed to turn down a job because the pay is too low. The two measures are expected to knock 50,000 more off the unemployment register and save £100 million a year in benefit payments".
In my view that is the main reason for this Bill. It always comes down to savings in jobs or money, and in this case both. I do not accept that there is a need for the proposals, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who claimed a need for the stringent new proposals. In my view there is a perfectly adequate framework of law and regulations to deal with abuses of the system. At present the Social Security Act 1975 disqualifies claimants who, without good cause, either refuse or neglect to avail themselves of suitable employment. It also disqualifies people who without good cause fail to follow reasonable official advice about finding suitable employment, or people who turn down approved training places.
That Act was passed by a Labour Government. These Benches supported it because we opposed abuse of the system in line with everybody else. We have never favoured abuse of the system at the expense of other claimants.
There are also in place stringent tests on availabiity and active search for work. Claimants are asked to fill in a form—UB671—which is an 18-part document which has some very searching questions which have to be answered. Before applicants fill it in they are advised to read the notes it contains. I quote from the document:
"Unemployment benefits are payable only to people who are available for work with an employer. We may ask you at any time what efforts you have made to find a job. Always keep a note of what you have done to find work and jobs you have applied for. Being available for work means that you can start work immediately. It means that you do not unreasonably restrict your chances of getting a job because of (1) the kind of job you are looking for; (2) the hours you can work; (3) the rate of pay you require; or (4) whether you are prepared to work".
Those are fairly stringent conditions. It is hard to know how they can be strengthened but the Government say they have done that in this Bill, which I dispute. Claimants are also asked to produce evidence, if they can get it—they cannot always do so—to say what they have done and all the steps they have taken—phone calls etc.—to find jobs. These forms are backed up by notes of guidance, directives and instructions to regional adjudication officers and to unemployment benefit office managers telling them how to interpret the replies
536
to the questions and advising them how to suspend benefit and for how long. It is almost always the case that as soon as there is something not quite right they are on the phone saying, "Immediately suspend benefit". There are no interim measures. They say "Suspend benefits and we can talk about it. Too bad if the man is not getting benefit in the meantime. Suspend it straight away and then we can discuss it". So there are stringent tests at the moment and very heavy penalties. I say that we do not need the new ones.
As if that was not enough, the availability tests that I have just mentioned are now linked with the Restart scheme which was piloted in January 1986 and implemented the same year. It is now linked to these stringent tests. Again, there is a fairly long form, which says:
"Being available for work means that you can start work straight away";
or if you are doing voluntary work in the community then you get a 24 hours' extension. It also means,
"that you do not unreasonably restrict your chances of getting work because of the type of job you are looking for; the hours you can work; the rate of pay you want".
So it is again emphasised that there are not any other conditions which would stop someone looking for work. They are all taken care of in that documentation.
Availability for work is not a new concept. It was introduced in 1924 in the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act. After a great deal of criticism by the Morris Report, that Act was repealed in 1930. The reasons are set out in the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, 1932, Cmnd. Paper 4185. It is not my intention to read all of it now but it makes very interesting reading. It substantiates my views and those of other commentators that the proposals in this Bill are unnecessary. They perhaps emphasise the need to be more punitive—tighten the screws a little more. They are certainly not sufficient to merit a completely new Bill. I am again left wondering why we have the Bill.
I have said that it is to save £100 million. It is also to reduce the unemployment register by 50,000. But there is another reason, and I should like to end with this point: this generation of renewed publicity and enthusiastic concern about the availability rules. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views of those who link the various training schemes to an increased emphasis on the act of searching for work. I agree with them when they perceive the overall trend as being toward a system in which benefits are given in exchange for compulsory work or training. In my view that is another reason for this Bill. We are moving toward a state of benefits in return for compulsory training. It is not quite the same but is almost like the workfare schemes which operate in the United States.
The Government were taxed with that and denied that they even contemplated the introduction of such schemes. There is a very detailed argument about these schemes in a document published last summer by an employment training organisation. In an article entitled Workfare by any other name it takes the Government to task on whether or not they are

537
contemplating such a system. It is all very well for them to say that they are not, but the Secretary of State has reserved his right to make the ET scheme compulsory. So there is reason to doubt the Government's intentions. I come down on the side of those who feel that the trend is toward paying benefits for compulsory training. Therefore we are into the area of workfare schemes. I predict that probably that will be the concern of the main clause in another mish-mash, hashed-up Bill in 1990 presented on the last day before a recess, just a couple of hours before we go off to enjoy a break.
Like others, I have many more points that I should like to raise but I have taken up enough time as it is. I look forward to an extremely interesting Committee stage.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I welcome this Bill and thank my noble friend Lord Henley for having introduced it. I recognise that there are some points which need to be dealt with in this House and I hope that we shall be able to persuade Her Majesty's Government to make some alterations so that it leaves here an even better Bill than it is at the moment.
I should like to raise a few points on ways in which we might improve the Bill. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, raised the matter of the attendance allowance for people who are terminally ill. We owe a great deal to the hospice movement for the work that it does in this country. I should like to pay tribute to the hospice movement for the work that it undertakes north, south, east and west in the United Kingdom. It has made representations to me, and I am sure to many other noble Lords, on the question of the attendance allowance. As is well known, the attendance allowance was introduced in 1971. It is paid after a six-month period. However, if one is found to be terminally ill and is likely to die before the six months, one does not receive the attendance allowance. I believe that we ought to help the hospice movement, and all those who are terminally ill, so that they can draw the attendance allowance before the six-month period.
A point that has been touched upon by many other noble Lords is the position of the 16 to 17 year-olds. I support the Government's policy that, where possible and practicable, young people of 16 and 17 years of age should be encouraged to live at home, and that it is wise to expect parents to continue to provide comfort and control for these young people. Before the Social Security Act 1988 a small proportion of young people were drawing supplementary benefit, leaving home, and, in some cases, living on the resorts on the south coast as if on a long holiday. It is right in the interests of those young people to help them so far as is possible and practical to be supported by their parents.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is not known at what age Dick Whittington walked to London. I had it checked in the Library since he made that comment. The first time that Dick Whittington is mentioned in history as being in London is at the age of 19. He may
538
have come earlier but we do not know at what age. However, apart from exceptional cases—I underline that; and perhaps Dick Whittington was one—I believe that the Government are right to hope that many children will stay at home in their early years.
Having said that, there are a number of 16 to 17 year-olds who cannot be at home and who have no home. This matter came up on the Children Bill. On that Bill we tried to make recommendations to Her Majesty's Government that young adults of 16 to 17 years should be aided and assisted by the social services departments if they had been in care. The Children Bill provides that they may be aided and assisted, not that they shall or must be aided and assisted. As was stated during discussion on the Children Bill, a number of local authorities are not assisted by the local authority social services departments and therefore at the age of 16 and 17 years young adults are living on very little money with no home to go to and no one to cherish and care for them.
Representations were made to the Secretary of State that these children should be properly cared for, in particular, financially. I pay tribute to both the Secretary of State and the Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott, who in a very short time altered the Social Security Bill, putting up the amount that the 16 to 17 year-olds should receive. I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth, but it was not and is not quite enough. Even now young people with no home background, with no one to support and help them, are still at risk.
It is not cost-effective not to help these young people more than we are doing. As one young girl said to me, "I have no option, Miss, but to go on the game. I have no option but to be a prostitute in order to live". Another said to me, "I must go on drugs. I must somehow get through life". I pay tribute to the number of young people who do not do either of those things but manage to live on the very small amount of money that they have, but it is at the expense of their health, without proper food and clothing.
Furthermore, the number of homeless young people in this country is increasing. It is because they cannot afford to pay for anywhere to live. Those are young people who in middle and older years will be sleeping underneath the arches. When we say that people should not be sleeping underneath the arches, we have to consider what happened when they were young. I submit to Her Majesty's Government that, with the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House, we may improve even further the position of 16 to 17 year-olds who have been in care.
There are also those young people who cannot live at home because they have been turned out of their homes. Indeed, one woman said to me the other day, "I cannot wait for my boy to be 16 for me to get rid of him. I want to go out to work and I do not want to care for him". It is regrettable but a fact of life that a number of young people are turned out of their homes or for various reasons cannot live at home. I make a plea to Her Majesty's Government that although they have been generous in considering this point they might consider it yet again.

539
As almost all other noble Lords have done, I raise the question of child benefit. There is one point that I should like to take up. I listened with interest to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. For those who are not well versed in high finance it was an extraordinarily interesting debate between the two of them. How do we know that the wealthy draw child benefit? Who are these people? No research has been done, so far as I know, on the wealthy who draw child benefit. I should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, if they would explain to me how they know who are the wealthy who are drawing child benefit. I cannot believe that there are very many in the country, and the few who may exist are welcome to it if we can keep child benefit for the remainder.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that since the Government cannot define poverty they will not be able to define wealthy either?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we shall wait and see what comes out of this debate. I take the noble Baroness's point.
I should like to ask the Minister what reasons are given for freezing child benefit for the last two years. This matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. Why has it been frozen? Other benefits have not been frozen, so far as I know. I have tried to check that. Tax allowances have been increased in line with inflation. It worries me greatly that we are rating our children at the lowest end of the scale. If we do not look after our children in this country, then the country suffers. We are putting children at the lowest end of the scale by freezing child benefit. What is the policy on the future of child benefit? We all want to know that. We are all worried at the freezing of child benefit. It is only child benefit—no other benefits. Does this mean that the Government will do away with child benefit? If so, I think that would be most regrettable for reasons which are well known and which I shall not go into now.
There are three other points I should like to raise. One is the question of working lone parents. The Government are pressing women to go out to work. Women are needed for work and the Government are pressing firms to set up creches and nurseries to enable women to work. This issue was also touched on in the Children Bill. Working women have to pay for someone to look after their children. Paying for a child to be cared for is a very heavy expense. I suggest that such women should be allowed to deduct child care expenses from their earnings in the calculation of income support and housing benefit. If they do not allow that the Government will be in some difficulty because the women will not go out to work. It will not be worth their while. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that perhaps the two Ministries should talk together because there are obviously two different aspects here. Unless this is resolved one department will not get what it wants because of what the other department is doing.
The young single expectant mother is not eligible for income support until her 28th week of pregnancy,
540
yet up to 28 weeks she is receiving £14·10 less a week than a married woman. After she has had the baby she is allowed the full allowance. That is a rather strange anomaly. It seems to me that she should have been receiving the payment during pregnancy if she is to be allowed to receive it afterwards.
There is a further point which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will take up, so I shall not develop it; but is my noble friend really happy about payments for bed and breakfast and for the lone homeless person? The Department of Social Security sent out an information sheet saying that most people receiving income support will not have less money each week just because of the change made in April 1989. I have tried to investigate that, and most families in bed and breakfast accommodation in London or the homeless young are less well off now than they were before April 1989.
Those are a few points which I have brought before the House. I believe that the Bill is good but I hope that we can improve it and send it from this House a better Bill.
1.43 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am pleased that, in introducing the Bill, the Government have proposed a number of amendments to the law relating to social security and to occupational and personal pension schemes. It has long seemed to me that some things needed tidying up. So far as the pension schemes are concerned there is just one point that I should like to make. This concerns the case of people who have enjoyed widow's pensions for which their deceased husbands have compulsorily paid. Why should they forfeit them if they re-marry? That seems to me to be anomalous. I know of several cases where naval, military and colonial service widows have found it more convenient not to re-marry but simply to cohabit in order not to lose financially. I realise that this situation has been long in existence, but it seems rather odd that there should be regulations which some find to be a bar to marriage.
I have several questions relating to social security. I am sorry not to see in the Bill any reference to child benefit. One would have hoped that there would be an increase in child benefit, pegged at the very least to price rises. That would have been widely welcomed because in many families the mother, and perhaps therefore also the children, are not necessarily receiving a fair share of the family income to meet their needs. The payment of the child benefit direct to the mother will ensure that in most cases the person most closely responsible for the children has at least some income in her own right.
One group that I am particularly concerned about, and which several noble Lords have already mentioned, are young people who for one reason or another cannot live at home. I welcome the recently announced changes in the benefit rules relating to some 16 and 17 year-olds, who, as others have said, have left care and have no support from their families and cannot live at home. However, the increase in income support to £27·40 will still not completely cover their needs—clothes, food, heating

541
and travelling to look for work. The increased rati which is the amount payable to 18 to 24 year-olds while a substantial one, is, I venture to think, based on a false premise; namely, it is calculated on the basis that young people under 25 are living at home I wonder whether any survey has ever been made o the extent to which these lonely young people ge into debt. That would be most revealing and would perhaps be of assistance in determining the rea problems.
During the passage through Parliament in 1986 of the Social Security Act, the Government made the point that 80 per cent. of young people under the age of 25 live at home with parents and therefore need less benefit. But the problem is for those young people who have left care and who have no home to go to or for other reasons cannot live at home. They are being forced to live on a rate of benefit which leaves very little margin for their other needs. Shelter is most concerned with the difficulties in getting assistance faced by young people who are estranged from their families.
There are also complaints of serious delays in receiving benefits. I realise that a few may decide to leave home and do not want to have anything to do with their parents. Some are difficult or think it would be nice to have money, but surely some way could be found to help those genuine young people who have nowhere to go and no one to turn to, especially those, as I have already said, who have left local authority care.
I am not blaming the Government for wishing to be economical, but those who advise them have not faced up to reality in the matter. This issue was raised during the passage of the Children Bill through your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack assured us that this matter would be dealt with in the Social Security Bill. He assured us that local authorities' duties financially to assist young people who have left their care would be dealt with in this Bill. I do not feel that our hope that it would be had been fully justified. Perhaps we shall be more successful at future stages of the Bill.
I turn now to Clause 7. I am sure everyone welcomes the increase in the age limit from 75 to 80 for mobility allowance, but how many persons over 80 are denied mobility allowance, suddenly finding their independence curtailed? There are an estimated 10,000 people with severe disability problems who do not receive the allowance because of the way in which the conditions for eligibility are worded, and in some cases interpreted. The wording of the test which causes most trouble is "virtually unable to walk". It is a purely physical test which looks only at a claimant's ability to use his or her legs or feet in order to walk. As a result of this test some disabled people who are incapable of independent mobility, fail to qualify for mobility allowance.
It is not only physically disabled people, but those who are deaf-blind who have difficulty in qualifying for the mobility allowance because, although able to walk, they cannot usually do so unattended and may need a skilled guide at all times when walking out of doors. All their problems added together mean that even the simplest journey will need assistance
542
from a taxi or another person, all of which has to be paid for.
Another group which is suffering are mentally handicapped children. They may literally be able to make the physical movement of walking but, because of behavioural problems associated with their condition—for example, they have tantrums or refuse to walk—travel on public transport is virtually impossible. Therefore their parents need a car. In his opening speech I understood the Minister to say that the Government will review the mobility allowance for the severely disabled after the survey of the OPCS has been received. Can the Minister say when that is likely to be?
Clause 10 introduces to the unemployment benefit scheme a requirement to seek employment actively before benefit may be paid. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that that is right; but the position of those people who undertake voluntary work under the new regulations is unclear. Age Concern relies on volunteers to provide direct services to elderly people across the country. Can the Minister say whether voluntary work will be sufficient evidence to show that someone is actually seeking work?
I have raised a number of topics. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments when he replies to the debate.
1.50 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I rise to welcome the Bill, as have many other noble Lords. In particular, I welcome Clause 1 which considerably reduces the percentage of National Insurance contributions and should therefore have a major positive effect on tackling the poverty trap. That is very good news.
Like other noble Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of speaking about child benefit. It has now been frozen and was not completely updated in line with inflation on a number of occasions. One has heard a dialogue about the possibility of its being discontinued, and I should like to speak up for it. It is paid to the parent caring for the child. That is usually the non-earner and usually the mother. It is a vital part of the exercise of her independent judgment on the child's needs, especially in a family where the father is less than generous. Sadly, overall family earnings do not always accurately reflect what is spent on the support of the child.
I realise that in planning their financial policy the Government are targeting benefits toward the low paid. Family credit and increased income supplements do so; that is a good thing. Nevertheless, the fact that child benefit has a 98 per cent. takeup shows its popularity. It is simple to claim, not subject to delay and therefore a great boon to the harassed mother needing the money urgently. It is also the country's investment in the coming generation. It is very much better targeted than the old tax allowance. Few people are entitled to it who could manage without it. They do not need to collect it.
I must point out that the vast majority of the money is thriftily spent. For example, it is spent on children's clothes, shoes and equipment which today are very expensive. Also, on allowing children to

543
take part in school activities, to widen their horizons, perhaps to allow them to learn a musical instrument or take sports coaching. Above all, it allows the caring parent to exercise judgment on individual children's needs. I hope that it will always continue to be paid and will be updated. Money spent on the country's future human resources must be money well invested.
I was delighted to read Clause 6, which is fair to those widows temporarily caught by an unfortunate anomaly. Although I am over 65 I am glad that the Government have fulfilled their pledge to abolish the earnings rule for pensioners provided in Clause 7. Calendar age is not the most important factor and one is as old as one feels. This House is a shining example of that fact of life. Peers in their 80s are intelligently carrying out a daily working schedule that would daunt many people 30 years younger. With the present skill shortages and the fall in the number of 18 year-olds that allows a better use of precious human skills and talents and allows them to benefit personally from their work.
I hope that Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 will also achieve that end. Long-term unemployment is the most demoralising experience. The possession of a job, a wage packet and the friendly relationships developed at work are among people's most valuable possessions and are a vital contribution to their self respect.
With the present problem of skill shortages jobs are available which remain unfilled, as the Minister said. Some of those jobs do not require special training. If people are actively seeking work they are more likely to obtain those jobs and be eligible for training which will fit them for unfilled jobs. Having held down one job they they are more likely to obtain another which better suits their skills. I believe that the allied initiatives of the Government, job clubs, employment training and enterprise agencies need to play their separate parts sympathetically in this exercise. Good counselling on self-appraisal, preparing an application form positively and learning how to improve one's job worthiness is of great value. Indeed, it is indispensable to the long-term unemployed.
The idea of a trial job period without losing one's eligibility for unemployment benefit is also good. I was also interested in the suggestion that a person who has obtained a job will have a week in which to prepare himself or herself before starting work. That provision is especially important to women who may have to arrange child care. Can the Minister say whether that period can be extended sympathetically if a woman is finding the provision of child care difficult? A week is not very long.
Finally, noble Lords will expect me to welcome wholeheartedly equal treatment for men and women in occupational pension schemes. During their working lives men and women have equal opportunities and they should have equal opportunities regarding pay and contributions and the drawing of pensions and benefits. I am also glad that the Bill provides for equal treatment directly and indirectly, so that the new legislation
544
will apply to part-time workers pro rata—most of whom are women—just as much as to full-time workers. That is a decision of great benefit and leads to women's greater independence in their old age which they deserve after a long working life.
On behalf of both sexes—and therefore true equal opportunities—I look forward to the equalisation of the state pension age. The day that happens will be a major milestone in equal opportunities terms. Everyone will need adequate warning of the effective date so that it can be properly planned for well ahead. Can my noble friend assure me that the Government are actively considering how to prepare for making that announcement so that it will be made with the minimum of delay? That would signal the achievement of a long-awaited goal. I welcome the Bill in many ways.
1.57 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, unlike the previous speaker I am not sure that I welcome the Bill. In fact I wish that we could find it possible to persuade the Government to change their social security strategy. The social security system has been described as being society's safety net, but the Government continue to find ways of making holes in the net. In 1986 it was the social fund. Last year the 16 to 17 year-olds were penalised. Both those decisions have had unpleasant consequences. One hoped that this social security Bill would amend the social fund as as to remove its cash limitation and substitute grants for loans, and make it less restrictive. The evidence shows that to be the problem with the social fund.
One also hoped that most of the 16 to 17 year-olds would have their entitlement to income support restored because there is plenty of evidence to show the consequences of its withdrawal. Instead of that, what do we have? The Bill puts additional pressures on the unemployed. It creates additional hardships for those who receive housing benefit and it does what I imagine the Government regard as their crowning achievement: it abolishes the Treasury contribution to the social security fund.
It is the opposite which is required. What is more, we are in a position where we can well afford it. Instead of abolishing the Treasury contribution, we should be setting up a proper social security fund. We are in a position to do just that because of our Budget surpluses. In fact we should be doing more for the next generation and the one after if, instead of using the Budget surplus to pay off the national debt, we used it to establish a proper social security fund, because at present the social security fund merely works from day to day on the basis of the payment.
I shall spend my few minutes in addressing two issues which have been brought to my attention by Shelter. Neither issue has been attacked in the Bill but this House has the opportunity to support amendments and I hope that when appropriate amendments come forward, they will be supported.
The first matter I wish to discuss is the position of homeless people who are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The noble Baroness, Lady

545
Faithfull, suggested that I would be dealing with that and I shall try to deal with it. On 10th April of this year those people were astounded to learn that their incomes had been severely cut due to changes in the way in which their benefits were paid. Prior to 10th April, boarders received a special rate of income support which included money for their housing charges and a meals or eating out allowance to compensate for the appalling lack of cooking facilities in the hotels. Now all boarders in bed-and-breakfast accommodation receive their housing costs through the housing benefit system rather than through income support and they no longer receive an eating out allowance.
Those changes have left most people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation considerably worse off. The lost eating out allowance was worth up to £21·70 per week per person for adults and children over 11 years of age where a hotel provided breakfast. In addition, families will have to pay certain service or amenity charges out of their income support which housing benefit will not cover. There is already evidence to show the devastating effect of those changes on people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
I should like to provide two examples which have been given to Shelter by a local advice centre in London to illustrate the point. Mr. and Mrs. S and their eight year-old child are a refugee family who have been placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by the City of Westminster. Before 10th April they received £81·50 income support per week. They now receive a total of £53·82—a loss of £27·68 per week. In addition, they have to pay £11·41 to their hotel for services, which in their case includes £4·50 per week for breakfast even though Mrs. S. for health reasons, does not eat the breakfast. Since the family have been placed away from Westminster, they have to spend £13 per week travelling to English language classes. That leaves them with a total of £28 per week plus child benefit—and at least that exists—to live on, or £1·68 per day per person for food, clothes and other essentials.
I shall give your Lordships another example. There is the case of Miss T, who is a single parent with two small children aged under 11. Before April, Miss T received £62 per week income support. She now receives £45—a loss of £17 per week. There is one kitchen in the hotel shared by 25 families, containing one cooker, with an oven which does not work and a hob with only three rings working. The kitchen is so small that only two people can fit into it at one time. Miss T relies on take-away food since she was badly burned by a pan of boiling oil which fell off the cooker when the kitchen became too crowded. Miss T pays £7·50 in amenity charges, including £4·50 for breakfast, which in her case consists of a packet of cornflakes, seven pints of milk and three eggs per week.
I understand that neither of those families has received any of the transitional protection which was promised at the time of the changes in April. As a short-term measure, I urge the Government to examine payments of transitional protection to
546
families such as those so that at least that dreadful blow can be softened to some extent.
The Government have declared that perverse incentives exist which encourage landlords and claimants to choose bed-and-breakfast over other forms of accommodation. However, that appears to be perverse logic obscuring the true situation. Many families such as the two which I have just described are placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by local authorities when they become homeless and they face stays ranging from a few months to several years. It is also important to remember that bed-and-breakfast accommodation can be used as last resort accommodation by single people searching for a home or temporary accommodation to keep themselves off the streets.
The conditions which people are forced to endure are scandalous and have been documented by Shelter and many other organisations on numerous occasions. It is not uncommon for up to 40 families to be sharing one tiny kitchen. Facilities for preparing, storing and cooking food are frequently limited or non-existent. Washing facilities are unsatisfactory and there is extreme overcrowding. Fire precautions are often inadequate. There is no doubt that living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation represents a serious risk to health and safety. Studies have shown that babies born to mothers living in hotels tend to have a low birth weight and that young children suffer frequently from a range of illnesses and emotional and behavioural problems. Where are the perverse incentives in any of this?
Nobody would choose to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation if they had any other option available. Neither is it sufficient to point the finger of blame at local authorities. Of course it is vital that authorities discontinue the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but that will not be achieved by cutting the income of homeless families who are forced to exist in such an environment. That is not the way to achieve it. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is used because of the crisis in housing supply. Council stock is being lost and cannot be replaced due to government restrictions on spending capital receipts and on borrowing. It is cheaper to build new homes for rent than to pay bed-and-breakfast hotel bills. That has been said in this House many times, but it keeps falling on deaf ears. Homelessness will inevitably and unnecessarily increase as people are priced out of even such basic accommodation.
The second issue that I wish to discuss is the position of those young people under the age of 18 whose entitlement to income support has been severely restricted. In September 1988 the age of entitlement to income support was raised from 16 to 18—your Lordships will remember that I tried my best to contest that—except for young people in exempt categories. Young people who cannot reasonably be expected to work or take up a YTS space—for example, parents and disabled people—are entitled to income suppot at least until their 18th birthday. Young people who are unable to live at home with their parents—for example, orphans, those who have just left care and young

547
people who are recently estranged—are also entitled to income support, but for a strictly limited period of either 12 or 16 weeks.
As a direct result of the changes in benefit, these young people are suffering great deprivation, in some cases to the point of destitution. The Government have pledged a YTS space for all young people. That point was made in last year's debate. However, in many parts of the country that pledge is hollow. There are simply not sufficient or suitable YTS places to meet the needs of young people. Experience has shown that many young people have been unable to find a job or a YTS place in the allotted 12 to 16 weeks. Moreover, it is unreasonable to expect that young people who have just become homeless will immediately settle in a job or YTS place while still coming to terms with their situation.
I give two more illustrations of the plight of these young people because it is necessary for the House to understand these issues by example. The first concerns a 17 year-old young man forced to leave home because of the continual violence of his father. He found a YTS place but could not keep it because of his tragic family circumstances and the stress caused by his homelessness. He initially received support from neighbours, but because he was not able to pay for his keep he was forced to move. In fact, he was not forced to do so but he did not feel comfortable and so moved on. Eventually he received £15 per week bridging allowance and found a local authority flat provided for the single homeless.
However, even though he received housing benefit—and this is the point—the income he had to live on was so low that again he felt he needed to move out. After approaching the social services he was referred to a young persons' hostel. At this stage the young man made a claim for severe hardship. I hope the Minister has noted that because that was given as the way out for these young people. Even that was refused. Apart from the eight weeks' bridging allowance, he has received no income since September 1988.
The second illustration shows the difficulties that young people face even when they have found a YTS place because they receive less housing benefit than people over 25 years of age. A 17 year-old young woman is in the second year of YTS and receives £35 a week. She lives in a housing association flat and pays £17·90 rent, plus rates of £6 per week. She had to furnish the flat out of this income and she was not entitled to a grant, which is again my point about the social fund. Out of her £35 income she has to pay £15 towards her own housing costs, leaving her only £20 a week for all her living expenses, including food, fuel, personal expenditure and travel to work. She has a YTS place but she is also in difficulties.
Faced with criticisms from agencies throughout Great Britain as to the effect of these rules, in March 1989 the Minister for Social Security announced a set of concessions to give extra help to some young people. These concessions are more than welcome, but I hold that, while the Minister has correctly
548
identified the problems, his proposed solutions fall far short of what is needed. It has been recognised that there are extra and unavoidable expenses in living independently. The Minister should meet these in full. He should allow the over-25 rate of income support and housing benefit for those 16 and 17 year-olds who have to meet their own housing costs. That is what is required.
The retention of an arbitrary time limit of 12 to 16 weeks in which young people can claim income support fails to address important issues. Experience since September 1988 has shown that some young people, particularly those in the trauma of homelessness, through no fault of their own, have been unable to find work or a YTS place within this period. The time limit also means that only those young people who become homeless as or shortly after they leave school will be helped. For those who become homeless after the child benefit extension period, the Minister's statement offers nothing.
I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who mentioned the 16 and 17 year-olds who become pregnant. They should be able to claim income support throughout the pregnancy and not merely during the last 13 weeks. Once the baby is born the needs and responsibilities of 16 and 17 year-old mothers are recognised and they, like other adults, are entitled to income support in their own right. These needs and responsibilities should be recognised also during pregnancy. Often these young pregnant women have more problems than the older ones. The Minister's statement refers to the "perverse incentives" in the benefits system which encourages young people to leave home. That is a lot of nonsense.
The increasing scale of youth homelessness is testimony to the tragic fact that many young people are forced to sleep on the streets as the only alternative to returning to a home which is no longer safe. That is often the case. In any event, many young people have no parental home. Forty per cent. of young homeless people have spent some time in local authority care. It is surely a perverse logic to deny young people the assistance necessary to enable them to gain access to help and support. The current rules should be changed because they actively prevent young people from resolving their problems of homelessness. If they are homeless, they will find it even harder to seek and find work.
I hope that my pleas as regards these two major issues will have more success than they did last year when I tried to get the Minister to face them as the 1988 Bill was going through the House.
I just want to touch briefly on Clause 22 of the Bill because the medical defence organisations have been expressing concern about it. As your Lordships know, the clause makes provision for the recovery by the Secretary of State of sums equivalent to social security benefit payments made to victims of accidents out of any compensation payments made to the same victims. The sensible argument for this clause is that it will prevent double compensation through the social security system and via damages for the same loss and that it will shift the burden of cost from the taxpayer to the negligent. However, it is clear that, as it stands, this clause will result in

549
some victims of accidents receiving less net compensation than they would have done under the present arrangements.
The main objection to the clause is that most of the benefits which will be paid to victims of accidents will be related to National Insurance contributions, which are wholly separate from general taxation. Clause 3 will make that so and it shows that the Government regard it as such. In these circumstances, the contributions which most, if not all, plaintiffs in medical negligence cases will have paid are akin to payments for any normal accident insurance policy. It is quite wrong therefore to deny people benefits which result from a policy for which they have paid. The question of whether they receive additional money from third parties is quite irrelevant. I have listened to the Minister, but I am not convinced. We shall have to look at this again.
I hope that during the passage of the Bill we will find a way of improving it. We must try to do better by the less fortunate members of our society than we do at present.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, Clause 7 abolishes the earnings rule so that a retired person will be able to work full-time without his earnings being affected. There is a parallel situation where certain retired persons whose requirements are at support level can lose that support, or some of it, if they obtain extra money without working for it. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred to the regulations of 11th April. On 11th April 1988 the Department of Health and Social Security brought in new regulations to simplify the system of income support and to prevent abuses. I applaud the intention. It is understandable that in practice there are some regulations that could have been framed in a more understanding way. That was 11th April. Since 12th April the Commercial Travellers' Benevolent Institution, founded in 1849, and I personally as its president have been pointing out the unfairness of one of the new rules.
Our 200 or more recipients are visited by skilled and dedicated local supporters who know intimately about their conditions. They are either very sick or very old, or both. Few have much longer to live. Our purpose is to make their remaining years as happy and as comfortable as we can. One thoughtless cruelty in the new rules is this: before 11th April we had been paying our recipients £4 a week, which was disregarded, plus £50 in cash for a birthday present and £50 in cash for a Christmas present. On 11th April the disregard was increased to £5 and the two £50 cash presents were no longer disregarded. To put it another way, before 11th April we had £100 a year to give each beneficiary for them to spend as they wished. On 11th April that ability to give our people an extra few pounds was taken away. There are so many cases where just a few extra pounds a week would make all the difference. We cannot give it to them without correspondingly reducing their state provision.
I do not accept that the restricted things we are allowed to do are all that should be done for such old folk by a caring society. We can pay for a holiday.
550
But if it is a regular holiday the pensioner has to pay. We can, and do, pay direct to a third party for an items such as a bed. We can, and do, provide a rented television or television licence, an electric blanket, a tea service or towels, a care phone service; but we cannot pay for food, clothing, fuel, housing and footwear, which are met by state benefits. Moreover, we cannot give them that birthday or Christmas present which they used to have.
To most of these old people a Christmas or birthday present is nearly, or actually, their only reminder that someone still cares. They write us newsy letters of thanks with remembrances of busy days gone by. They feel remembered and the £50 to spend is a cause for celebration. However, we cannot do that any more because these would be regular payments and so disallowed.
The Ministry says, "Pay it on another day; don't make it regular". The young and fit do not really like to receive the, "Sorry I forgot" card on their birthday; but for the lonely and old it is an unforgivable and unnecessary insult that we have to do this. It is that inability to give even a few pounds a week in cash in spending money that prevents the occupational charities helping their own unfortunates to just a little more dignity and happiness. It is those very old and infirm people who are the sufferers.
The regulations have not even left such people where they were; indeed, they are worse off since 11th April. Why should they not have a few pounds of extra spending money? After all, the money would come from us and not from the taxpayer. The Minister, the right honourable John Moore MP, wrote to me on 10th October last informing me that he had asked officials to examine and report by this summer on how charities are generally managing. He said that this would give him the best opportunity to identify whether charities were experiencing any unacceptable practical difficulties under the new rules. For us the practical difficulty is to do it well or better—as we know we should—for our beneficiaries, without creating loopholes for exploitation.
The unfairness, the complete lack of sympathy and understanding for our sort of needy people would, I believe, be easily put right by ceasing to insist on the administrative tidiness of treating all charities alike. They are not. Their recipients and circumstances differ as much as those of their beneficiaries. Specified charities should be allowed to make cash payments to their beneficiaries in excess of the disregard, plus the birthday and Christmas presents which, unfortunately, we can no longer give.
Such cash payments should be limited as should the number of beneficiaries. There should be a minimum age or, below that, a medical proof of infirmity. A list of particulars could be produced annually to the Ministry to justify continuance as a specified charity. All that is required is that this report of unacceptable practical difficulties should include an understanding deal for the aged and infirm.
2.28 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, there are two omissions from the Bill which cause me great concern. The first is the issue referred to by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. I refer to the problem of provision of accommodation and support for young people leaving care and going into the world at the age of 16, without a family to go to. I have not brought with me today examples of the problems which such young people are now having in our society, but I shall have no difficulty whatever in doing so at later stages of the proceedings on the Bill if, as I hope, amendments are laid down on this subject. I shall certainly be supporting the noble Lady if she does so.
The other matter that I wish to discuss is the question of targeting in relation to child benefit. The subject of child benefit seems to be a well-trodden path in this debate, but that is perhaps because it is a path which needs treading. Many of us fear that the Government intend to phase out child benefit altogether. I should like to urge upon them the fact that this would be a grave mistake.
Child benefit has the enormous advantage that it is a certain entitlement to every child which cannot be taken away and upon which the parent, who is the chief provider for the child, can rely. Of course that is not true of income-related means tested benefits. The Government have said that they are anxious to target benefits. I am entirely in favour of the principle of targeting. The question is, how does one do it? There is more than one way in which targeting may be operated. It can be achieved by making available funds only after careful inquiry into the means and needs of each family; it can equally well be achieved by making an allowance available to all children, and then clawing it back through the tax system from those who do not need it.
At first sight, the second alternative looks clumsy and inefficient, but it may have real advantages. By what criteria should we judge support? Surely it must be targeted, economic to administer and compassionate in application. With regard to targeting, we must ensure not only that those who are not entitled do not receive the benefit, but that those who are entitled do receive the benefit. Family credits, which are a targeted benefit, working on the principle of testing the means of those who are entitled, are at the moment achieving less than 50 per cent. of take-up; that is, a 50 per cent. failure rate in respect of targeting. By contrast, I believe that child benefit achieves a take-up of over 90 per cent. One earlier speaker said that it was achieving 98 per cent. in respect of successful targeting.
On a superficial view, it might seem that to pay out an allowance and then to claim it back through the tax system from those who do not need it is uneconomic and clumsy. However, the distribution of benefit in respect of every child is extremely simple, and the collection of tax is already provided for through the Inland Revenue service. On any honest assessment of the administrative cost, the churning of those funds may prove not to cost any more, but possibly less.
552
Finally, on the criterion of compassion, there is no doubt that universal child benefit is outstandingly the better solution. How many of your Lordships would like to endure an official inquisition and be obliged to admit, "Yes, I am inadequate. I am unable to provide for my family. Here is the proof of it"? It is a humiliation with which any compassionate society should wish to dispense, especially as it is unnecessary and inefficient. It may be that not many of your Lordships are frightfully keen on the alternative of standing up in front of the tax man and saying, "Yes, I have been doing rather well. I must admit that I am due to pay some more tax". However, in terms of humanity and self-respect it is a better alternative and one in which the taxpayer can take some pride. We should ensure that every child of this nation who needs it receives the statutory support that all political parties agree should be their entitlement. I would ask the Government to abandon any plans they may have for the abolition of child benefit paid on a universal basis. Instead, I would ask them to consider next year an increase in the level of benefit, to bring it more into line with the present day costs of maintaining a child in the family.
2.34 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I must confess that I found his arguments most persuasive. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take them away for consideration and deep study, not necessarily in relation to the Bill—I suspect that it is too late to do anything on that front—but for the long-term process of dealing with child benefit.
I welcome the Bill, unlike some noble Lords opposite. I thank my noble friend Lord Henley for introducing it so clearly. I welcome especially Clause 7 because I may have had a little to do with its introduction. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that we welcomed the fact that in the past it was possible for someone to defer a pension and then receive more at a later stage. I came upon that situation some three years ago when I reached a great age and was advised by my accountant that, yes, I did get more at 70 but it was nothing like the greater amount I could expect if I wished to get my money back. With the aid of the accountant I put down a Question—this might amuse your Lordships—on 14th May 1987. It appears at column 819 of Hansard.
The Question asked the Government when I would get my money back, why they did not give the full amount to begin with and having reached the age of 70, how long I could expect to live. The Answer was that the average person, this mythical creature, retires quite soon after 65—the majority, I think, within five months. We were given an average. And the Government went on to say that it would take 20 years to recover the money I had foregone so that I would have to live to the age of 90 in order to receive it. I have studied Clause 33. Unfortunately, the Bill is unlikely to be enacted in time for me to benefit from it, or if I do so, it will only be slightly.

553
The Government also made the point that the life expectancy of a man of 70 is only 10 years. I expect to live to 80; I have to live to 90 to get my money back. I accept what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter says about encouraging people to work in order to get on. But it is on the whole better to have the earnings limit removed, and I am delighted to see Clause 7.
That is by the way. I wish to talk about two main subjects. One has certainly been touched upon; perhaps both have. I am advised on these matters by the CBI and therefore declare an interest. Clause 23 relates to pensions, Schedule 5 goes with it; and the recovery of damages is dealt with under Clause 22.
With regard to equal treatment for pensioners, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has explained how many of our largest and most progressive companies have what is called an integrated pension scheme. That enables them to pay a total pension to men and women equally from the age of 60 onwards. Thus the total pension is entirely fair and in that sense in accordance with the directive on which Clause 23 is based.
However, if the Bill is enacted as phrased at present, it will not be possible to adjust the occupational part of the pension to take account of the fact that men and women are paid their state pensions at different ages. That means that women between 60 and 65 will be better off than men, which is clearly unfair. I am sure that my noble friend who recently headed the Equal Opportunities Commission agrees that it is very unfair to men. I expect that most things are unfair to women; but this is unfair to men.
To be serious, this is a matter which companies will find extremely difficult. They have gone to some trouble over many years to obtain agreement from all the people involved, that equal total pensions are the right course. It is also basically in accordance with the theme of the directive.
The problem is that when in June 1986 the directive was approved by the Council of Ministers, the DHSS, in a circular to all the people concerned, including the CBI, gave them clearly to believe that there was provision within the directive to allow for deferment of the application of strict rules as described in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances was the implication of the differences in pension ages of the two sexes for the benefit structure. The CBI thought then and thinks now, as the phraseology has not changed, that that applied until such time as the Government brought the two pensionable ages into line. Everyone would like that to occur as soon as possible, although we also realise that it involves all kinds of financial problems for the Government. Certainly that was the impression the CBI gained from the advice it received from the DHSS in June 1986.
To judge from the discussions in another place, it seems that the Government have been persuaded by some lawyer somewhere that what they told the public in June 1986 was wrong and that it is not possible to defer the adjustment of occupational pensions beyond the due date of January 1993. This is a matter, as I understand it, of legal opinion.
554
One of the larger and more important members of the CBI took counsel's opinion. He has been persuaded that the Government's advice is wrong and that it should be possible to defer making an adjustment to the present integrated pension scheme until such time as the two state pensions come into line. I have sent my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale a copy of the counsel's opinion. Perhaps my noble friend will want to defer discussing the matter until we reach Committee, when I have tabled an appropriate amendment. However, he may wish to refer to it this afternoon. I hope that at some stage he will persuade his legal advisers that they are wrong. It is as simple as that.
If the present position continues, it will result in unfairness. What is worse, at least four countries, Belgium, Germany, Portugal and Italy, have different ages of retirement for men and women and are confronted by exactly the same situation. As far as we can tell, they are very relaxed about it. They do not suspect that any problems will arise, such as being taken to the European Court, if someone claims that a man or a woman has been unfairly treated. I hesitate over the words "man or woman" deliberately. Which sex will the European Court defend? Perhaps, as the court is composed entirely of men, it will defend women. I hope we shall be able to thrash out this important point in Committee.
Clause 22 will give the Government powers to claw back social security benefits from any award of damages made by a person's employer. In future, insurance companies paying a tort award will be required to deduct and pay to the DSS a sum equivalent to the value of any social security benefits the injured person has received. At present, the injured person retains a proportion of the benefits to which he or she is entitled, and the damages award paid by the employer's insurer is proportionately reduced in line with the benefit paid. This compromise rightly reflects the fact that both the employer and the employee have paid contributions to the National Insurance Fund. It is obviously inequitable to require employers to insure themselves twice, once through employers' liability premia, and again through National Insurance contributions. Similarly, it is unfair to reduce the tort awards made to employees as they have paid their National Insurance for social security benefits through their National Insurance contributions. If they were not both contributing to National Insurance, a different argument would apply. However, they have contributed.
This claw back will result in higher premiums being paid by companies thus adding unfairly to their costs. Why have the Government done this? The clause is not backed by an EC directive. It seems to be an unfair way of upsetting the present compromise which pays due regard to insurance already effected, both nationally and privately. Perhaps the Government feel that it is a way of encouraging employers to increase accident prevention, but this is hardly the appropriate legislation for such a measure. It also overlooks the fact that no company wants accidents, they cost money. Furthermore, there is a whole raft of health and safety legislation. So perhaps that is not the

555
reason. Perhaps it is—to put it another way—simply imposing yet another tax on companies, because that is what it will in practice be. It is as simple as that.
Whatever the reason, I hope that the Government will come to see that the Bill would be improved if Clause 22 were omitted altogether. I shall seek to persuade them of that in Committee. I should add that the Medical Protection Society also believes Clause 22 to be inequitable and feels that it should be removed. It has another interest in this matter which shows how broad the opinion is.
In the meantime, perhaps my noble friend can show, when he comes to reply, that the Government have already had second thoughts on the two points that I have explained. I hope very much that we shall not have too much of a battle in Committee. Certainly, those two areas need to be changed, but in other respects, with all sorts of qualifications, I believe that the Bill is a good one.
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if my memory serves me right, the abolition of the earnings rule appeard in my own election address in 1950. That was the first of the many unsuccessful attempts that I made to enter another place. However, we on these Benches are familiar with the unintended flattery that comes from imitation. I should say that we have become more familiar with it recently. So I greatly welcome the inclusion of that provision in the Bill. I am afraid, however, that that is where my enthusiasm for the Bill ceases.
In introducing the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Henley, stated—he did not go ino any reasons—that at present there was no effective way of making sure, to put it bluntly, that people were not deliberately drawing benefit while not attempting to find work; in other words, that they were shirking. Several speakers have raised the point that we all—including myself—believed that there were quite adequate ways of checking up on whether people were not genuinely seeking work and that there were penalties which could be applied if they were so doing.
When he comes to reply—I am not trying to make a cheap point; we should very much like to know—will he tell us what is the difference? As he well knows, there are at present ways in which that could be done. Will he tell us where the system has proved to be so inadequate? If we knew that, we would have a much greater understanding of why the Government are trying to do that. The information was given to us as a statement. I understand that it was also given as a statement in the other place, and a little more explanation would help on both sides of the House. It may well be that the Government have a point, but it has not been made clear and we should all like to know what it is.
I should like to start by considering the question of the period of 13 weeks—I understand that that is the outside figure—that is allowed to a person who is seeking employment but wants employment in his own type of work or who puts reservations on the job that is being offered as not being suitable for one reason or another. A period of 13 weeks seems to
556
me to be a very short ultimate date. There may be people who could be expected to find suitable employment earlier than that and who may genuinely be found to be turning down work that they should accept.
However, in today's debate, we are talking as if the fall in unemployment, which is very welcome, was uniform across the country, but it is not. It is perfectly true that in many parts of the South-East—although not in all of the South-East—there is now a tight labour market and it has plainly become much easier to find jobs than it was a couple of years ago. There is no denying that. But equally there is no denying that in parts of the North-East, the North-West, Scotland and Wales it is still very difficult to get jobs. It seems to me that to have an overall 13 weeks absolute cut off point at which people can be required to take jobs which are quite different from those for which they have been trained and in which they have had their experience is much too rigid and is too short a period of time.
One noble Lord has said that if one has a job it is easier to get another one. In one way I think that that is true. On the other hand, if one has taken a different job and fallen out of the job in which one has been trained and out of one's trade or profession, when it comes to applying for another job in that profession—and perhaps for the past 15 months one has been doing something completely different—in the eyes of most employers one is in a very weak position compared with people who have been able to remain in their own line of work. Therefore I urge the Government to think again and consider whether they cannot build more flexibility into that period of 13 weeks.
Of course the Government are primarily thinking about the long-term unemployed. We all know that in fact even at the worst periods of unemployment a great many people were obtaining jobs. To an overwhelming extent they were the people who had had very short terms of unemployment. Equally, we all know that it is much more difficult for a whole variety of reasons for a person to get back into employment when he or she has been out of work for a long period of time. Such people need skilled help and counselling and need to be chivvied if they are to get back fully into employment.
I should like to make the point that has been made on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House in other connections also. The people employed in the Department of Employment and those employed in social security offices who deal directly with the public, giving advice and carrying out interviews, are pretty low down in the hierarchy. They are not given very much time to do this work and above all they are often inadequately trained for what is quite a skilled and sensitive job if they are to explore the needs of the long-term unemployed and give them the right kind of advice.
The information that one receives about the progress of the counselling sessions since the employment training scheme was introduced is very mixed. In some cases it is good but in some cases it is extremely perfunctory. I should also like to ask the Government to look again at the kind of training that they give to the people who will give this advice

557
and counselling, because if the system breaks down at that point it breaks down altogether. The Government do not have an overwhelmingly good record as regards training and could well look at ways in which it could be improved if they are serious about bringing the long-term unemployed back into employment.
As for the employment training scheme, which after all is the instrument for bringing people back into employment and works much better than threats, in many parts of the country it is showing that the amount of additional money that people can obtain over benefit when they undertake the employment training scheme is inadequate in a whole variety of ways. The £10 over benefit is just not enough, not even as an incentive. The Government imply that £10 should be sufficient to encourage people to return to training. That is not the difficulty. The problem is that there are all sorts of expenses that arise when people go into training and begin the business of applying for jobs.
I was involved with an access to business course of that kind. I realised, for example, that if there is practical work involved in the training, and of course there should be a period of working with an employer, one has to turn up reasonably well dressed. If one is put in an office or with a lot of well paid computer people, one cannot turn up in the kind of garb in which the noble Lord would not garden. But that is the kind of situation in which a great many people find themselves. One also has to be able to join in during the lunch time. I am now describing the experience of the people on this course—they simply did not go to lunch or into the bars, which in fact is a part of the training, because they did not have the money to do so.
This situation can affect women in particular. There are many women—whether registered unemployed or not—who ought to be returning to the labour market and ought to be in employment training. I shall not go into the problem of women who do not qualify for employment training. That is another subject. I wish to emphasise the position of women who wish to return to the labour market, who are eligible for employment training but who have the hideous cost of child care if they take the training.
It is all very well to offer £50 for the single mother, but mothers who are not single also have a case. To obtain decent child care costs anything between £15 and £100 a week. I know women in London who are paying £100 to have their children looked after. This occurred in one case of a much appreciated, very successful, training programme for professional women. One of the women paid £100 a week to have her children looked after. An additional £10 over and above benefit will not go very far. Yet unless the women have their children looked after there is no way that they will return to the employment market or to a training programme. I beg the Government to consider that issue. I echo what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. She asked whether women could not have this expense counted against taxation when they start to earn, so that they have some adjustment at that point.
558
I deal very briefly with other points, some of which have already been raised. As did the noble Baroness Lady Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I welcome the equal opportunity clause in this Bill. But what we really want are equal and flexible retirement and pension ages. A good deal has been said about that. However, I should like to underline the issue. I strongly suspect that it will receive all-party support at the Committee stage.
What has been mentioned only briefly is the attendance allowance. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, mentioned it in connection with the hospices. I wish to talk about the attendance allowance where people are looked after in their own homes. The same arguments apply that the noble Baroness made for the hospices. Many people who have a terminal illness are looked after in their own homes. However, many of them die before they qualify for the attendance allowance. The allowance is paid a little too late. I do not have to elaborate the point. At that stage the additional money is obviously extremely useful in that household. Can we not reconsider the six-month period? Obviously the Government have to be satisfied that people really need the attendance allowance. But it should not be beyond the wit of the Government and their medical advisers to find some way in which certain categories of ill people can be paid the allowance at a very much earlier period, and do not have to wait until they are dead for it to be ascertained whether the illness was terminal.
In this connection I mention the invalid care allowance which, in a sense, partners the attendance allowance. Provided an attendance allowance is being paid, the invalid care allowance is made available to the person in the home who is looking after the elderly or infirm person. It is a very small allowance in any case but it counts against social security. That is one reason why there is a very small take-up of the invalid care allowance. The argument is the usual one: that nobody should receive two state benefits. But the people who qualify for invalid care allowance are doing a job just as much as is a home help. They are saving the state having to pay a lot of money to look after the people for whom they are caring and who would otherwise be in an institution. Is it really necessary that it should be counted against social security rather than allowed as an extra for people who are doing this extremely demanding but extremely cost-effective work in their own homes?
One other point on that subject: when the invalid care allowance was introduced, one of its great benefits was that it gave people a Class I stamp which qualified them for a pension when they reached pension age and their caring, in most cases, had come to an end. That benefit still stands today. But when it was introduced it also qualified those concerned for unemployment benefit when the person they were looking after died and they wanted to get back into the labour market. I think it is a particularly mean act that has led the Government to withdraw the unemployment benefit while leaving the pension. I am delighted that the pension still stands.

559
When someone has been tied up in a house for years looking after an increasingly infirm and often exceedingly difficult person and that person dies, getting back into the labour market can be difficult. It is a little unreasonable to expect people to go from the graveside to the Jobcentre. They need a little time to look around. They have been doing all this work (and it is work), and it is unreasonable after all those years to expect them to go to the employment centre to register as unemployed persons, and to start drawing unemployment pay, without a reasonable time to look round to find a job that is right for them.
So much for the detail of the Bill. There are two principles in the Bill, both of which I want to attack, at least in part. The Government are devoted, and are convinced that they are right, to the principle of targeting. At first sight it sounds quite plausible: concentrate the money where the need is greatest. About that I should like to say two things: the first is how we should define need. We are back to the debate earlier today, but many of us feel that there is something to be said for what may be called horizontal distribution which arises particularly on child benefits. Yes, there are people of the middle income group who are not in need in the most rigid definition of the word "need".
I speak as a single person who has never had to support a child, but I know that my colleagues who have had three or four children had an infinitely lower standard of living than I had because they were paying out for their children. Many of us felt that it was highly desirable that that transfer should be made from the middle income groups, from people who had no children to support, to the people who had children to support. That is a form of targeting. It is targeting on the people who are carrying the heaviest burdens. They were not destitute or in danger of being unable to pay the baker's bill, though some of them might have found the butcher's bill a bit difficult sometimes. But the difference between colleagues who had family responsibilities and those who did not was most marked, to put it mildly. That kind of thinking, the narrow definition of targeting to which the Government seem to be working, is very unimaginative indeed.
The other point about targeting is the effect it has on the poverty trap, the unemployment trap, the discouragement to get back into employment. We have talked about this so often, but the point has never been answered. If benefits are targeted, the minute people begin to get above a certain level of earning they begin to lose very heavily. That is surely a challenge to the whole idea of targeting. One wants to accept that certain benefits should be targeted, but we should also accept that targeting is not a doctrine that has to be rigidly observed. It should be used in appropriate circumstances, and modified when it seems sensible so to do.
I have gone on for much too long, but I shall merely state that the other principle I want to attack is fairly fundamental. Not for the first time I find myself in absolute opposition to the noble Lord,
560
Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is not, he will be amused to know, a matter of proportional representation. Even I cannot bring proportional representation into a debate on the Social Security Bill! The noble Lord always accuses me of introducing the subject on every conceivable occasion. This is not such an occasion.
The noble Lord firmly defended the contributory principle; the idea that it should be seen as an insurance scheme. We on these Benches do not believe that that is sensible. We believe that the time has come when National Insurance should be merged with general taxation and when one should go on to obtain the tax benefit scheme in which social security and tax are fully merged. Of course it undoes what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, regards as absolutely sacrosanct—the contributory principle.
I have no doubt that one of the reasons why the Government have removed the Treasury contribution is that they will then be able to say that at last this is a genuine insurance scheme. Surely we want good social policy sensibly financed. We on these Benches do not want it calculated on a strict accountancy, book-keeping basis of insurance contributions. We want a decent social policy to maintain decent standards throughout the country. Taking away the Treasury contribution will not give us that kind of result.
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, described the Bill as a "ragbag of a Bill". I have heard it described in the other place as a "curate's egg of a Bill'. Certainly a number of disparate subjects have been jumbled together to form a Bill. I find some of its propositions acceptable but others are not acceptable to Members on these Benches. Of course we shall probe the Government in Committee about those propositions.
In my contribution to the debate I intend to draw attention to some of the provisions which I find unacceptable and to flag those areas where we shall be seeking amendment. First, there is the proposal to end the Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund which has already been referred to by a number of noble Lords. I suppose that "tripartitism" is a dirty word to this Government, but Beveridge originally envisaged a tripartite scheme of contributions, there being a contribution from the Treasury together with those from employers and employees. The Treasury contribution was fixed at 18 per cent. by the Social Security Act 1972. Since this Government took office, the Treasury supplement has gradually been eroded. Now, according to the Bill, it will disappear altogether.
The fund is said to be in surplus, but that is largely because of the erosion of benefits. The proposal to do away with the supplement altogether underlines the Government's opposition to social insurance. That opposition is not shared on these Benches. It constantly confuses socially insured benefits with means tested benefits. It is intended to push more and more people onto means tested benefits rather than to social insurance benefits where they are payable as of right.

561
Then there is the proposition to extend the so-called "liable relatives" provision. At present, if parents are separated or divorced, the non-custodial parent—officially known as the "liable relative"—is liable to pay maintenance for a child for whom income support is payable. It is now proposed to extend the definition of "child" to cover someone aged 16 to 19 for whom either parent or guardian is receiving income support. The Government hope to save some money in that way, but the amount is so small—£0·6 million in 1989–90, rising to £2·4 million in 1991–92—that one wonders why it is worth doing. Families in which there is a separation are usually families in crisis. If social benefits are payable, they are also poor. I question whether the proposition is worth carrying out. Perhaps the Government will respond to that point.
A number of noble Lords have discussed child benefit and I need to say nothing more on that subject save to confirm that we on these Benches are committeed to the principle that it should not be eroded and that its value should not only be maintained but also enhanced.
As regards the raising of the upper age limit for mobility allowance, we must surely welcome that as an improvement. However, as a number of noble Lords have said, the Government might have taken the opportunity to deal with the relatively narrow definition under which this allowance is payable. There are disabled people—and I have been briefed on this matter from a number of organisations for the disabled—who would benefit from that allowance but cannot qualify for it under the present definition. Again, as a number of noble Lords indicated, we on this side shall return to the matter in Committee.
There is then the provision to abate unemployment benefit for those with personal pensions. When the previous Social Security Bill was before this House, I and others raised repeatedly the matter of this abatement in regard to those receiving small occupational pensions and pointed to the anomaly which existed if those with personal pensions suffered no such abatement. I am sure that the Government will now claim that they have met that criticism. However, the main argument at that time was that that should not happen at all, that many persons aged 55 and over are still in the labour market and that the amount of pension at which the abatement commenced was far too low and had not been increased in line with inflation. The Government have listened to none of those arguments and have simply extended the injustice to those with personal pensions. We shall take that matter further in Committee.
The heart of the Bill—and that is perhaps a misnomer because, when it comes to the unemployed, I believe that this Bill has no heart—is contained in the clauses relating to the payment of unemployment benefit and the actively seeking work requirement. A number of noble Lords have already dealt with that in great detail. Again the Bill demonstrates the Government's belief that jobs are there if only people will look for them. In many areas of the country that is wildly inaccurate. It is a fact that even in the prosperous South-East there are
562
areas where it is difficult to find employment. The Government seem to be compelling people into jobs which are not suitable. Very often such jobs are badly paid or part-time. It is a real problem—and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, dealt with this—for people who have not been unemployed before if they take work which is quite dissimilar, at a lower level and lower paid than anything they had before. They may be writing themselves off in their normal occupations, since an employer will not take them if they have been doing lower grade work even if productive industry picks up again and higher grade work becomes available.
I had a letter not long ago from an unemployed journalist who claimed that he was being offered a job as a packer in a supermarket. That is happening already. The proposed legislation would push unemployed people further down the road into unsuitable and poorly paid employment. In fact the current test for availability for work already includes the concept of an active search for work, because claimants are asked to fill in a form indicating what they are doing to try to find work. The new wording can only be intended as a means of putting further pressure on unemployed people and as such is totally unacceptable to these Benches.
Then there is the proposal referred to by a number of noble Lords and notably by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for the recovery of social security benefits when damages in tort are awarded. In my view, that is a further blow by the Government on the industrial injuries scheme. We on this side of the House can be expected to be hostile to that concept. In fact there is an unusual combination of allies. The TUC is against the Government's proposition, as is the CBI, the Law Society and the Association of British Insurers. At present an injured employee may receive benefit under the industrial injuries scheme on a no fault basis. It is enough that the injury has arisen out of or in the course of employment. It is the only no fault system that we have and it has been gradually eroded under this Government. If, in addition, the employee can demonstrate that the injury arose as a result of employer negligence or the negligence of a fellow employee, he may secure compensation on those grounds from the court.
The Government claim that the injured worker thus receives double compensation, since at present only one-half of certain DSS benefits are taken into account in the assessment of compensation for negligence. The proposition in this Bill, as we have already heard, is that the whole of the social security benefit should be taken into account. Thus, the Government will benefit to the extent of £38 million in a full year. Nobody else will benefit. The CBI believes that its members will have to pay higher insurance premiums, and they undoubtedly will. Lawyers believe that there will be less inclination to settle out of court, so there will be further delays as the courts become clogged with cases.
The ABI is opposed to the proposition too, believing it will involve insurers in a lot of additional administrative work and make cases harder to settle. The TUC is opposed to a further erosion of the industrial injuries scheme and what it sees as an injustice to injured employees. Why do it when we

563
are told that we are more prosperous than ever before and when in any event the national insurance fund is in surplus? As has already been pointed out, if an individual has private accident insurance the benefits deriving from that insurance would not be taken into account; so why do it for social insurance for which the individual has in any case paid? We shall be returning to that point in Committee and I am glad to note from the debate that we shall undoubtedly be joined by noble Lords on the Government side of the House.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the equality provisions, which in general I support and which the Government are introducing in response to the EC directive intended to achieve equality of treatment for women in occupational pension and other benefit systems. What is proposed here is acceptable. However, there is one aspect which needs to be raised sharply. It has already been mentioned and I must say that, unusually, I am in partial agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and almost total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. As I understand it, the directive still permits member countries to apply different ages in regard to entitlement to state retirement benefit. As is known, we have a diference of five years in the UK. As long ago as 1976 the Occupational Pensions Board—of which I am a member—was pointing out that unequal pension ages in the UK were responsible for a whole range of anomalies and that unless pension ages were equalised as far as the state was concerned these anomalies would persist. That is demonstrably the case.
I have been approached by a number of organisations, pension schemes, and, incidentally, by the CBI. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, some very good schemes run by good employers pay pensions which are integrated with the state benefit. In other words, the pension payable is calculated in relation to the total amount received from the state and from the occupational scheme. Some such schemes, often in response to union claims, have equalised pension ages at 60 for both men and women. As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, explained, that means that women receive their state pension immediately but men have to wait until age 65. Such employers have been in the habit of paying men a bridging pension until they reach the age of 65. It now appears that this practice is regarded as illegal under European law. I have to say that that is not the view of all lawyers, including some with considerable experience and one who has had a great deal of experience of equality law. I have had a copy of that opinion sent to me and I believe it is the same as the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Of course, if only we had equal pension ages for men and women this problem would disappear. By that, I do not mean equalising at the age of 65. Many people would find that totally unacceptable. However, I hope that the Government will grasp this nettle soon. We shall certainly be returning to the point in Committee.
564
As I said earlier, some parts of the Bill are acceptable; others are not. I have concentrated on those aspects which are not acceptable since I wanted to give some idea of the areas in which we shall be tabling amendments. There are also some omissions from the Bill and we shall be seeking to table amendments to cover those omissions.
Finally, perhaps I may say how much I agreed with my noble friend Lady Jeger when she referred to Disraeli. It so happens that I am also a great admirer of his work and in particular of the novel Sybil; the sub-title is of course The Story of Two Nations The two nations in Disraeli's time were the rich and the poor. I very much regret to say that it looks as though that gap is constantly widening under the social policies of the present Government. The Bill does nothing to alleviate the situation.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government's social security programme has an impact on the lives of millions of people in this country; namely, on the unemployed, the elderly, families and young people. We are well aware that social security spending is the largest single item of government spending, accounting for £1 in £3 of public spending and costing each and every household in the land £47 a week. It is crucial that spending on this scale is effective; that was true not only in 1948—we have heard references to Beveridge—1975 and 1979 and now in 1989, but in each and every year. Conditions change and in this modern world they change very rapidly indeed. That is why in recent years we have had an annual Social Security Bill. I cannot see the trend of the past few years being any different.
It is essential that a social security programme not only provides immediate help for those in need but that it does not have unwelcome long-term side effects. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said that we must do better. Yes, we are, but that depends on your definition—and, my goodness, we have heard an awful lot today about definitions—of "better". It is right that our social security system should evolve to ensure that it does not institutionalise dependence on the state and create barriers to enterprise and wealth creation. We should also ensure that it does not undermine the family. This Bill seeks to take forward these principles. Perhaps its main themes are fairness and economic efficiency.
In defending the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I ask whether it is fair, for example, that two people aged 61 retiring from an equally paid job and having paid exactly the same amounts into an occupational pension scheme should receive different amounts of pension until they are both aged 65. Clearly it is not, but some occupational pension schemes currently treat men and women differently not on actuarial grounds, which would be fair, but because women get a pension from the state earlier than men.
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who remarked just now that if we equalise the state pension age this problem would go away. Unfortunately that is not quite so. The rules of the occupational pension schemes would still need to be changed and there would be a certain expense in

565
so doing. I believe that that is the main bone of contention put forward by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who referred to Clause 23 and Schedule 5 where the meat of this problem lies.
The position is that some pension schemes have what is known as a bridging pension, taking into account the state payment that is made to women. Mars, of Mars Bar fame, is one such scheme. It has been quoted so much in another place that that has probably done its sales a power of good. I believe that we need to consider the object the directive spelt out in Article 1, from which all this derives. This is to implement in occupational pension schemes the principle of equal treatment. It is to schemes that the directive applies and I believe that that is very important. Accordingly, in determining whether there is unequal treatment, we have to compare not primarily what a man or woman receives in aggregate from a number of sources but what the scheme itself pays to men and women and how such sums are calculated. The bridging pension might result in a man and a woman receiving the same aggregate sum, the man, from the scheme alone and the woman from both the scheme and the state. When we consider what the scheme provides, the man is paid more by the scheme than his female counterpart. That is where the directive is breached.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we need to look at the precise wording of the derogation in article 9(a) of the directive. It states:
"Member states may defer compulsory application of the principle of equal treatment with regard to determination of granting old age retirement pensions and the possible implications for other benefits".
In other words, it applies to state schemes and not to occupational schemes.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, and in response to his gallant defence of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is it fair that, where throughout their lives a man and a woman have contributed both to an occupational scheme and to the state scheme, for a number of years at any rate the woman receives substantially more than the man?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend will remember that while the contributions to the state scheme are not actuarially based, in almost all occupational schemes they are so based. Therefore I think it would be quite fair. My noble friend has bounced me slightly and I should like to take that point away and study it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I thank my noble friend.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is one clause that covers both points of fairness and economic efficiency. Clause 22 deals with the relationship between social security benefits and compensation payments made in respect of the same injury. The underlying principle established by Beveridge is that social security benefits should be available to meet immediate needs but if the person later receives compensation,
"he should not in the end get more from the two sources together than he would have got from one alone".
566
This clause is fully in line with that principle.
Social Security benefits will continue to be paid as now. They are not being recovered. What will happen is that any compensation will be reduced by the amount of benefit which has been paid, much as it is at present. The main difference which this clause provides is that the amount which is withheld from compensation because benefits have been paid will no longer offset the compensator's liability. He must meet the full liability by repaying the Secretary of State for Social Security the amount that he previously would have retained. Most compensators are insurance companies. The cost of meeting the full liability for injuries will inevitably mean that premiums are likely to increase. But by how much is not something anyone can say with any certainty because there are factors involved which cannot be predicted, such as the extent to which compensation payments may increase as a result.
Putting this in concrete terms a company with 1,000 employees and in a medium risk category will currently pay about £140,000 a year in liability premiums. An increase of 8 per cent. would mean an extra £11,000 a year on the total employment bill of £9·3 million. That is fractionally over a 1·6 per cent. increase in the labour bill. In terms of total expenses it will be minimal and, equally, tax deductible.
I am aware that it has been suggested that the scheme is unfair. Those who make that charge have not answered this question. To whom is it unfair? No individual will have his benefits taken away. Many benefits are already offset in full from compensation, and others by 50 per cent. I have identified one that has a total disregard. Only three of the 13 benefits are contributory, so the charge of double insurance contributions, which was levelled at me by my noble friend, fails.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about stoking up problems for the future by removing the Treasury supplement. He almost said that the fund will run out of money early next century. He did not quite say that but that was his theme. No, my Lords, the yield from National Insurance contributions, even after the measures in the Bill, will remain a most crucial source of government revenue. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked why we do not use the resources available to help beneficiaries. We are removing the pensioners' earnings rule—which has been welcomed by all sides of the House—which will add considerably to many pensions in this area. But, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, there is a down side; it is indeed possible that fewer people may defer their pension. Perhaps I may cheekily remind my noble friend that that is what we have oppositions for: to point out the damaging facts. I am delighted that at various points in the debate today there has been a certain amount of concert across the Floor of the House.
What this House must do is to make decisions on the balance of the arguments. We have recently announced added income support and housing benefit premiums to pensioners over the age of 75 who have not had the opportunity to benefit from a state earnings related pension scheme and of course

567
graduated pensions. That will cost an extra £200 million a year which is financed by the taxpayer and is targeted upon those in greatest need.
We have reformed the structure of national insurance contributions not once but twice. I am sure that the House will welcome those reforms, which improve incentives, especially for those on low incomes.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, perhaps predictably, gave the House a blast on the "actively seeking work" provisions contained in Clauses 10 to 13. Indeed, many other noble Lords have made the same point. However, he and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—and I think also that noble Earl, Lord Russell—mentioned the unemployment benefit leaflet No. 6/71 which asks, among a string of other questions, what efforts are being made to find work. Yes, that is quite true; but the question is asked to indicate the need for extra counselling and out-of-work training, both of which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will agree are vital. The intention is not to put pressure on the claimant by withdrawing benefit if the person does not actively seek work. To do so under current law would be illegal.
If it is to be a condition of receiving unemployment benefit that claimants should be looking for work, there must be an additional specific provision to that effect. However, that specific provision does not currently exist in law.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this point, but I think that this matter needs clarification. Is the noble Lord saying that those who have been deprived of benefit because they were classified as not being available for work in the past year were wrongly deprived?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords; that is not the case at all. There are two completely different concepts. One is to be available for work. I checked up on the matter this morning. I believe that this has been necessary since unemployment benefit was first introduced in 1948.I see that the noble Baroness is shaking her head, but in any event that is the information I received this morning.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it can in fact be put both ways. I believe that "capable of, and available for" was the phrase which was always used.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. The other concept is rather different. You can be available for work—in other words, you can receive it on a plate if it is offered—but you do not have actively to go and get that plate and help yourself. Those are the two concepts which need distinguishing.
It has been suggested today that the current availability for work requirement is sufficient to ensure that claimants seek work actively. However, that is not the case. The relevant commissioner's decision (RU 580) discusses the requirement to be available for work, which will of course remain in the 1975 Act. The decision clearly says that
568
availability is more than a simple passive step and that the claimant must take some active step to draw attention to his search for work.
What those "active steps" will be will be a matter for great discussion in subsequent stages of the Bill's passage. It is a frequent complaint of your Lordships that the Government ask the House to legislate in the dark, especially in social security matters. However, while I have had the honour of speaking for the department in this House I do not believe that this has been so.
In connection with 16 and 17 year-olds in last year's Bill—of which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, still has criticisms, but perhaps we shall be able to return to that matter later—I read out at great length what would be in the regulations. As I recall, your Lordships suggested additions, and additions were indeed made. The House then debated the resulting regulations.
So far as concerns this year's Bill I shall not read out now the content of the regulations. However, I shall send each and every one of your Lordships who has spoken today details of what we plan to put into the regulations under Clause 10, and put a copy in the Library. Your Lordships will then have an opportunity to take it apart at your leisure, as it were. I emphasise the fact that the regulations to be made under those clauses are for affirmative resolution, so there will be a final opportunity for debate.
My noble friend Lady Platt put a gloss on the matter, as did one or two other noble Lords, by talking about the problem faced by women in arranging child care when they have secured a job. She suggested that they should be given a week's grace. There are two issues here. First, under current law, benefit claimants are expected to be available to start work immediately. However, that is modified for people such as mothers with caring responsibilities, who are expected to be available to start work within 24 hours. That allows time to make final arrangements for the care of children, but there is an expectation that women claiming benefit and seeking work should have provisional arrangements already made.
Secondly, the new actively-seeking-work condition introduced in Clause 10, provides regulation-making powers to deem claimants to be actively seeking work in certain circumstances. It is the Government's intention that they will include the last few days of a benefit claim which precede the day upon which a person starts work. That will of course be of benefit to mothers in the situation described by my noble friend.
It is no secret that the Government are committed to resolve the issue of an equal state pension age. That subject is under active consideration at the moment. We shall announce our findings as soon as possible. I agree with my noble friend that when a decision is arrived at and legislation is enacted, any change proposed therein cannot take place overnight. There must be a lead time, no matter what the change is. I see noble Lords opposite nodding at that.

569
The debate has again been notable for your Lordships' comments on matters that are not in the Bill. I cannot possibly deal with them all, but there have been themes about which I should like to say something. If I run out of time, I am sorry. The first, of course, is child benefit. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and many others, asked why there was no mention of that in the Bill. The reason is that there does not need to be. Noble Lords must not get me wrong. First, as a concept, it already exists in legislation and therefore we do not need to invent it. At the same time, I should mention the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument put by my noble friend Lady Platt. She will remember that the 1987 Conservative manifesto said that child benefit would continue to be "paid as now" and direct to the mother. The Conservative Party believes that manifesto commitments should be honoured, and that one will be, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place only last year. Any argument in connection with the Bill should recognise that the benefit exists and, at £7·25 a week, at a not unreasonable level.
Many of your Lordships spoke as if you did not recognise that fact. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is a case in point. The questions under consideration are how and when it should be uprated. The law says—this is the second reason why there is no mention of child benefit in the Bill—that it must be reviewed annually, and it is. However, it does not have to be uprated annually, and therein lies your Lordships' concern. It would need no change in legislation to achieve that end. Families with children at the bottom end of the income spectrum need additional cash, whereas those at the top do not. Therefore the Government have chosen to increase the amount of money that goes to families at the bottom end in each of the two years.
How then do we give them extra money? The only ways we currently have are income related—the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, called them means-tested—benefits. These have been increased by more than if we had increased child benefit, to the tune of 50 pence per child last year. But, the noble Lord asks, what about the 40 per cent. or so who do not claim income support and family credits? I take the point very seriously indeed. That is why we are currently in the middle of a vast advertising campaign for family credits and, as noble Lords will know, have simplified the claim forms. I have no doubt that we shall be returning to the issue quite soon.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Craigton for raising the important matter of charitable payments, and for the opportunity it gives me to acknowledge on behalf of the Government the valuable work done by many of the charities. As a caring government we have always recognised the importance of concessions for charitable payments within the social assistance schemes. That is why, when the changes were introduced in April last year, we made specific provision for charities to make regular payments in a variety of circumstances and irregular lump sum payments without affecting a person's benefit. When taken together, the changes enable charities to
570
continue to give as much help as they have always done, although I fully accept that a few charities may have to change the way in which they make payments in order to take full advantage of the new rules.
However, I recognise my noble friend's strength of feeling over the absence of a specific disregard for payments made at Christmas and birthdays. The House will know that the Government are committed to monitoring the reforms, including the way in which charities are managing the new rules. Indeed, my noble friend referred to a letter from my right honourable friend saying just that.
We have shown in the past that we are ready to ease the rules when it proves necessary. We shall certainly take fully into account the views expressed this afternoon by my noble friend. I am grateful for his helpful suggestions. However, I believe that the monitoring which we are currently undertaking, and which covers a wide spectrum of charities, offers the best way forward for deciding what further concession, if any, is needed.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull and many others spoke with great feeling on a matter which commands the instinctive sympathy of us all—the plight of the terminally ill. She has urged that we abolish the six months' qualifying period for the attendance allowance for this group of disabled people. I know from the many letters I have received in recent weeks that this is an issue which commands support in many quarters, not least from the hospice movement. I am delighted to have a hospice in my home village. I believe that we all know and respect the incomparable work of hospice staff and the home care teams in helping terminally ill people and their families. I am also aware of the recent reports by the Social Security Advisory Committee, Benefits for Disabled People: A Strategy for Change and Attendance Allowance: A Benefit too Late, which recommend abolition of the attendance allowance qualifying period for people with terminal illness.
Nevertheless, there is a very real problem here. As noble Lords will recognise, attendance allowance is paid to the sick person so that it can help towards their paying for a carer. One does not have to be terminally ill in order to receive it, but one does have to have been ill for six months. The problem is, how do doctors, even if they know that someone is terminally ill, tell them in each case? The psychology of this I find quite daunting. Indeed, I observed the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, wondering whether it is right to have an attendance allowance, as constituted at present, at all. Is the real requirement a carers' allowance, for which we hear calls from time to time, or is it a totally new benefit? I do not pretend to know the answers to these rhetorical questions which demand close, careful consideration, but I think I shall do so quite soon.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me intervening I do not recall having said—at least if I did, then I do not know what I was thinking about—that I favoured the abolition of the attendance allowance. I do not think that I said that, and it would be very embarrassing for me to have it on the record.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right, I do not have her remarks down in quotes as saying that, but part of the tenor of her speech was to explore other avenues. It does not terribly matter whether those other avenues include the attendance allowance. I was pointing out——
Noble Lords:Oh!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was referring not to the comments of the noble Baroness but to other questions when I said they did not particularly matter.
The opportunity to scrutinise the attendance allowance scheme and the whole present system of benefit provision for disabled people will shortly present itself when we have all the information from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys disability services. We shall have that by the summer Recess. Therefore I do not think that now is the right time for piecemeal tinkering with benefits for disabled people. I am not alone in that view. The Social Security Advisory Committee made the same point when it presented its recent reports to my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled. I further add that the Duchess of Norfolk, who, as the House will know, is chairman of Help the Hospices, will discuss this whole matter with me next week. I shall report the results of that to the House as soon as possible.
I am running out of time, but I had hoped to say something about homelessness. That matter was raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. However, as I know that there will be a debate on this subject very shortly, I hope the noble Lord will excuse me if I write to him when I have fully studied the tenor of his speech.
At present, mobility allowance comes to a grinding halt when the recipient reaches 75 years of age. My honourable friend the Minister responsible for the disabled has made it clear that at the moment no one who is already 75 receives the allowance. However, that will change very soon. That is why we are extending the allowance, but only as a temporary measure. I should add that one must apply for the allowance up to the age of 66. However, one cannot receive it between the ages of 65 and 66.
War pensions committees are a matter on which I shall have to write to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I appreciate that I have not answered all the questions raised by any means. However, as usual, I shall comb through the Official Report and write, as appropriate, well before the Committee stage.
This Bill represents another very important stage in the evolution of the social security system. It builds on the 1986 reforms and underlines the Government's commitment to a system of benefits which provide help when it is most needed, at the same time as reinforcing the principles of individual responsibility and self help. It is important to restate that no social security system can be set in concrete for ever. Society is dynamic and it changes. Social security must change too.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Dock Work Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill
3.49 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. This Private Member's Bill was sponsored in another place by the Member for Lewisham and Deptford, Ms. Joan Ruddock. We should all be grateful that she used her early place for Private Members' Bills in that way.
I wish to thank the many people and organisations that have written in support of the Bill. I look forward to the co-operation and support of the Department of the Environment in attempting to get it through the various stages in your Lordships' House. I am pleased that there was such strong all-party agreement in another place on the need to control the illegal dumping of waste, or fly-tipping as it is more commonly called. Fly-tipping is the dumping of waste or rubbish on land without the landowner's consent. It also includes the dumping of waste on ground even where there is consent but the site is unlicensed.
The public concern which culminated in the Bill arises from the dramatic increase in the dumping of builders' rubbish. Although that increase has occurred all over the country, it is in London that the problem is particularly acute. While the visible evidence of widespread fly-tipping of building rubbish is obvious, there is, I am afraid, a more sinister side to the problem. Along with the dumped building rubbish is a good deal of hazardous and toxic waste. That problem has been discussed in the House on a number of occasions and I shall deal with it later in my remarks.
In London, the boom in building work, particularly around Docklands, has expanded fly-tipping of building rubbish on an unprecedented scale. Up to 90 per cent. of the fly-tipped waste in London comes from construction sites. It may be dumped on roads, open spaces, car parks, industrial estates and even into people's back gardens or outside businesses. It is a cheap way for builders to get rid of unwanted rubble but very expensive for the landowners or the local authorities that have to clear it up. The cost of disposing of waste in the proper manner is now about £200 a tonne. It is clear that the financial incentive to break the law is very strong.
In London, the scale of the problem is almost beyond belief. The London Waste Regulation Authority estimates that there are now more than 1 million tonnes of fly-tipped waste on the streets of London at any one time and that the cost of disposal for local authorities will be about £5 million. That is an enormous burden on ratepayers. I must stress that, although I have used the example of London, the practice is widespread throughout the country, in towns and even in the countryside. Birmingham

573
has estimated that fly-tipping costs £300,000 per year to clear up. In Surrey, rubbish was dumped in the green belt to a height of 25 feet.
To deal with the problem of fly-tipping, local authorities try to prosecute. But the law is inadequate in several respects. Unless fly-tippers are caught in the act by the police, the authority or a reliable witness, it is impossible to prosecute. If, at the time of the offence, the vehicle registration number is noted down and traced, the driver may not be caught. If the driver is apprehended, but runs away, there is no proof that he is responsible. Even when the responsible person is caught and successfully prosecuted, the fines are often minimal and do not act as a sufficient deterrent because the money paid to the court is more than recouped in another day's illegal activity. The number of prosecutions is disappointing. There were 66 in 1984, 53 in 1985 and 70 in 1986. There is still a great deal of work to be done.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide a better framework for control of fly-tipping. It does that in two ways. Clauses 1 to 5 introduce a system of registration for carriers of controlled waste; that is, household, industrial, commercial and any of the more hazardous wastes. Clauses 6 and 7 strengthen the enforcement provision of the Control of Pollution Act. Clause 6 authorises the impounding of vehicles suspected of being used for illegal waste disposal when it has proved impossible to trace the owner of that vehicle. Clause 7 makes new provision for disclosure of information.
I must stress that the Bill does not replace Section 3 of the Control of Pollution Act as a means of prosecuting fly-tippers. It acts as a deterrent by enforcing registration procedures. Under the Bill, a fly-tipper may be prosecuted for not being registered, although it might be difficult to catch people in the act of fly-tipping. If a person were caught fly-tipping and found not to be registered he would suffer the double penalty of being prosecuted for non-registration and for fly-tipping. I hope that the Bill will bring the operators of illicit disposal trucks under much closer scrutiny and therefore reduce fly-tipping, which brings the legitimate waste disposal industry into disrepute.
I should like to emphasise that the Bill applies to individuals and companies who run a business or make a profit by the carriage and disposal of waste. Therefore it raises no issue of civil liberties. There is no question that someone moving personal domestic waste would be affected by the Bill. We seek to deal with people who profit from moving waste.
The registration scheme will greatly aid the identification of illegal carriers of waste. In time and given the diligence of the authorities, it should reduce the number of illegal operators. As I have said, vast sums of money are involved in these illicit operations. I believe that the huge profits to be made from fly-tipping will still induce some criminals to continue the practice. Those who persist are likely to be the most unscrupulous operators.
I should like to turn briefly to the subject of fly-tipping of toxic and hazardous waste. The London Waste Regulation Authority estimates that
574
around 15 to 20 per cent. of present fly-tipped material could be toxic. It is extremely concerned that it contains asbestos waste, with which it is most difficult and very expensive to deal. One must remember that it was the fly-tipping of cyanide waste in Nuneaton in an area used as a playground by children that led to the enactment of the Control of Pollution Act in 1974. It will be obvious that the money to be made from illegal tipping of special waste such as asbestos and cyanide compounds is many times that to be made from building rubble, and such people must be the most unscrupulous of all.
In 1981 your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology looked at hazardous waste disposal and the working of the 1974 Act in an inquiry which I had the privilege to chair. Among the many issues that gave rise to recommendations from your committee was the lack of control over the carriers of the various categories of waste. Your committee recommended that carriers should be licensed, with proof of the necessary qualifications, and your Select Committee has vigorously pressed this case since that time.
Recently, the Select Committee re-opened its inquiry to review the up-to-date position. It was necessary because of disturbing reports by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Hazardous Waste, a body which was brought into being as a result of the recommendations of the 1981 report. In the meantime the Government have also issued consultation papers proposing legislation some time in the life of this Parliament. Those papers proposed registration of carriers as a supplement to the duty of care that the Government intend to place on producers of waste.
The right honourable Member for Lewisham and Deptford quite rightly judged that the urgent subject of this Bill could not wait for some time in the future life of the Parliament and therefore, with government support, this Bill is before us today.
The report issued last week by your Select Committee did not consider that simple registration was sufficient to contain the problem of fly-tipping combined with the dumping of hazardous waste. The committee recommended that registration should be dependent on evidence of technical competence and financial soundness. The Government propose a similar requirement for the disposal site operators.
The committee supports the Government's proposal for the duty of care on the producers of waste, since it reinforces the principle of control of hazardous waste from the cradle to the grave. The public need to feel reassured that waste disposal is being carried out safely and under firm control. Legislation to provide for a duty of care is not before the House at the moment. I hope very much that we shall see it in the next Session. However, registration of carriers, which we are considering today, is an important contribution toward introducing the duty of care. Perhaps I may refer to what the Minister in another place said on Third Reading of this Bill. She said that we need a register of carriers of waste so that those who have a legitimate wish to continue their business feel secure that the people to whom they have entrusted their waste will satisfactorily

575
meet the necessary standards. That is exactly my view. I feel sure that the Select Committee would also endorse those words.
Responsible producers will want to know that carriers are reliable. They will want the assurance that the employment of a registered carrier is evidence of the producers' compliance with the duty of care. An effective register of carriers is therefore in the interests of both the public and the waste producers. The register will be necessary to reduce the number of cowboys operating in this field to an absolute minimum.
I understand from the Department of the Environment that existing regulations controlling the carriage of goods and dangerous substances also control the transport of waste and provide for the competence of carriers and their financial soundness. I shall be glad to receive confirmation of that fact from the Minister this afternoon. I therefore invite noble Lords to agree that fly-tipping is a menace that we should prevent so far as we possibly can. For this purpose we need a register of carriers. We also need more effective enforcement of existing legislation. That is what the Bill offers.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Gregson.)
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, it is not often that one is present during the Second Reading of a Bill in which there is such universal agreement in the Chamber about the purpose of that Bill. On behalf of these Benches I wish very warmly to welcome the Bill and congratulate the honourable Member in another place on bringing it forward and the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, on introducing it in this Chamber.
The Bill deals with a growing problem which, as has been explained, is perhaps greatest in the large conurbations, and probably greatest of all in London. I happen to live in the rural countryside. I would not say that the problem does not exist there, because it does; it is a problem nationwide. The Bill deals with and concerns only waste that is removed and dumped for profit. When the Government later this year, or early next year, bring forward their own suggested strengthening to the Control of Pollution Act 1974, I hope that they will also deal with the duties of waste disposal authorities inasmuch as that duty is to collect waste.
I have sat on the bench for a number of years, and frequently ordinary individuals have appeared before me who were prosecuted for polluting the countryside by throwing rubbish in the hedges or in the woods around where they lived. Very often this had happened because of the refusal by the waste disposal authorities to collect the rubbish from their homes. I hope that that matter will also be considered when the Government bring in their Bill.
I agree with, and welcome, the strengthening of the Control of Pollution Act, which makes it necessary and easier to catch the offender in the act. Once a registration system exists, the problem will
576
be partially solved. All of us know that illegal fly-tipping is largely carried out by cowboy operators who often operate at night. They are in and out of a site in a matter of minutes. It takes literally a minute or two to tip a lorry. To catch someone in the act of illegal fly-tipping requires very good eyesight and the capacity to read the registration number of a vehicle. It is not something easily achieved. The environment committee in another place therefore suggested that registered carriers should have their names clearly written on the sides of their vehicles. So far the Government have not agreed to this suggestion, but perhaps we can return to this problem at a later stage.
Alernatively, we may perhaps have an assurance that it can be dealt with under the regulations which the Government will make when the Bill becomes an Act. Section 93 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 established the power of authorities to obtain information and to establish a fine of £400, or two years' imprisonment to be imposed. All of us agree that that fine and those penalties are wholly inadequate, particularly in view of the fact that a legal waste disposer makes on average, so I am told, £400 per week, but an illegal tipper can make as much as £1,300 to £1,500 per week by shorter runs to unofficial tips. Thus, a fine of £400 is obviously totally inadequate. We therefore welcome in the Bill the increased penalties of £2,000 for ordinary tipping and an unlimited fine for poisonous tipping, with up to four years imprisonment.
I believe that the most important deterrent in the present Bill is the danger of the seizure of the vehicle, inasmuch as it interferes with the operator's capacity to carry on his business. It is quite right, however, that the Bill also includes various safeguards for the operator: if he is transporting waste in an emergency, if he is not aware that it is controlled waste or if he is acting under instructions from an employer. But we are delighted that the onus of proof will rest with the operator to prove that he did not know what his load contained.
The strengthening of the Bill by the Government in their proposal for the imposition of a duty of care is obviously welcome. What is certain is that every legitimate operator in this field will welcome the Bill. I was recently involved in having to clear the whole of a basement of waste in a large London building. I called in a legitimate operator who quoted me the sum of £250 for removing the rubbish out of the basement. Looking at the rubbish in the basement, I felt that it was rather a lot of money. I do know how the word got around, but within two hours I had two other operators at the building offering to do the work for £100 instead of £250. I made some inquiries about the other operators and found that they were not legitimate. That is why I am saying that the legitimate operators will be delighted with the Bill. I have taken some trouble to ascertain that they approve of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are on tenterhooks. What did the noble Baroness do?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I paid £250.I am a law-abiding citizen.
Lord Gregson: Duty of care.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, yes, duty of care. The other firms did not seem reliable. I have used that example because it constantly happens to legitimate operators and it interferes with their business.
I sincerely hope that the Bill will be read a second time, and that, after perhaps one or two amendments have been made at later stages, it will become an Act. I hope that the Government will, with the utmost urgency, come forward with the regulations required under the Bill. I support the Bill.
4.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gregson on bringing forward this valuable Bill which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, received unanimous support in another place. It has been supported by all the responsible authorities. On reading the Second Reading debate in another place I noted in particular the support of Sir Hugh Rossi, the chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. He is also my Member of Parliament although I do not have the privilege of voting against him.
The Bill has the support of the environmental health officers and the London Waste Regulation Authority. It is more surprising that it has the support of the Road Haulage Association, which is clearly concerned with the problem of cowboy operators. It also has the support of the Royal Society of Chemistry, which is particularly concerned with the issues of hazardous waste.
A number of Members who spoke in another place on Second Reading spoke partly as Members of that House and also as ex-members of the Greater London Council. I was also a member of the Greater London Council. In the 1970s when the council was responsible for a number of significant developments I was well aware of the problems which it faced. Having cleared a site for redevelopment for housing or whatever, and despite the precautions which had been taken such as providing strong fencing, it was highly likely that it would be broken down and tipping would take place on the site. As the noble Baroness said, tipping can take place in a matter of minutes. In one night the same vehicle can tip many loads of waste materials. It can so on a number of different sites and often get away without being seen by even one witness. The problem with the law as it stands is that one witness is not enough. There must be a witness who takes a note of the vehicle number and also someone to support that in order for the evidence to be effective in a court of law.
It is universally recognised that the Control of Pollution Act 1974, however well intentioned—and there was no controversy about its intentions—is seriously defective. The first step which the Bill proposes is the registration of those who have the right to carry what are defined as "controlled wastes". Obviously it makes the carrying of controlled wastes without being registered an offence. That must be right.
578
Apart from dealing with other ancillary matters of registration, the Bill goes on to deal with penalties in Part II. I suppose that in that area there remains some controversy—not among those who do not share the objective of the Bill, because everybody shares its objectives, but there are differences of opinion about how it should be made most effective. The view has been expressed in another place that the only really effective way of penalising those who are caught fly-tipping would be not simply to detain or impound the vehicle but to confiscate it. I do not know whether there is an experience of long-term confiscation without compensation, but certainly the City of New York has introduced an effective impounding scheme where vehicles are impounded for significant periods. I understand that within a few months of introducing that scheme, 175 vehicles were impounded and that was found to be an effective and valuable deterrent.
This is not a question of imprisonment. No one wants to fill our prisons in that way. However, as has been very clearly said, much money is to be made from fly-tipping and the only way to hurt people who make money in that way is by hurting their pockets. The penalties should be related to the potential for profit and should substantially exceed that potential if they are to have any effect at all. Therefore, seizing, impounding and detaining vehicles is a valuable step because it prevents the people from operating while the vehicle is in detention. In other words, it is a financial penalty and that is the basis on which it should be welcomed.
There are a significant number of health issues connected with this Bill which cause concern among local authorities. Of course there is the issue of hazardous waste to which reference has already been made. However, there are also issues where local authorities feel that they do not have adequate resources, even if they have adequate powers, to deal with the environmental health problems caused by fly-tipping.
The danger of fly-tipping is made worse because there are so many vacancies for environmental health officers as local authorities, particularly those in inner urban areas, do not feel that they have the resources to recruit and retain the services of enough environmental health officers not only to provide enforcement but also to provide remedial action when there are health hazards.
There is also the problem with which the Minister will be familiar because we have talked about it in discussing sewage matters in Committee on the Water Bill; that is, that the rat population tends to be based in the sewers and unless it is adequately controlled in the sewers, rats will escape via the manholes and will be encouraged to do so by any rubbish lying around which is attractive to them. Clearly that could be the case when certain kinds of substances are disposed of by fly-tipping and when they are not adequately protected.
As noble Lords have said, the core of the matter is that someone has to have a duty of care to see that the menace is minimised. It is encouraging to know that the Government have recognised the duty of care and that they have given their virtually

579
wholehearted support to the Bill as it has gone through another place. When the Minister replies, I should like to know what has happened to the commitment made by his honourable friend Mrs. Bottomley on Second Reading on 24th February, when she said that the Government are committed to introducing measures which will effectively and responsibly deal with the problem. I am sure that she is rightly making the point that the scope of a Private Member's Bill is limited and that further government measures will be necessary to deal with the problem as a whole. Can the Minister give the House any further indication of what other measures will be introduced and when they are likely to be put before Parliament?
This is not only an uncontroversial Bill, but one which has been widely, indeed universally, welcomed. It deserves the support of this House. I am delighted that it has received support from Members on other Benches and, I understand, is supported by the Government. We wish the Bill well and we wish my noble friend an easy and rapid passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
I say only this to my noble friend about the possibility of seeking amendments to the Bill in Committee. If amendments were to be added to the Bill in Committee there is always the risk of the Bill not finding parliamentary time in another place. I know that my noble friend will bear that risk very much in mind because it is clearly Better to get the Bill on to the statute book, even if it is not perfect in everybody's eyes, rather than risk losing the whole Bill. I add my wholehearted support to the Bill.
4.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, this Bill is welcome. As its title suggests, it contains a set of amendments and additions to the system set up in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These changes are modest in scope, but they foreshadow a very much larger government measure to come that will bring the waste controls of the 1974 Act up to date in a form that should last us into the next century. It is especially heartening to see the extent of all-party, indeed all-round, support for this Bill. I hope that this accord is something that can be built upon when we come to government legislation on environmental protection.
I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, is in the singular position of being both grandfather and godparent to the Bill: grandfather, because in 1981 it was under his leadership that your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology first proposed a system to control carriers of waste. Such a system is the core of this Bill. It must give the noble Lord some special satisfaction to act as god-parent at this Bill's baptism, so I hope that no one will be pouring too much cold water on it.
The noble Lord has already clearly explained the main provisions of the Bill. I should only like to add the Government's view: what these provisions are all about, what they are not all about at all and how
580
they fit into the wider picture of controls on waste. The Bill covers two subjects: the register of carriers and the powers to seize vehicles. The register of carriers is best thought of as a list. It is a complete list of persons in business carrying other people's waste, minus only convicted villains.
This list will help both waste authorities and waste holders. For the authorities it offers an aid to tracing waste movements and detecting offenders. For holders of waste the register is a list of legitimate outlets to whom waste may be given. The key point is that a registered carrier will be identifiable. The authority or the holder will know who he is and will be able to find him again; for example, to ask what he did with a particular consignment of waste. That is where the register paves the way for the duty of care on all waste holders that will be part of the main government legislation to come.
The register is therefore a register of persons who carry waste. What it is not is a register of vehicles or a control on the means or manner of carrying waste. Those are matters for transport law: things like how waste should be packed and sealed; how a hazardous load should be labelled or documented; the qualifications of the driver; his hours of work; the condition of the vehicle and the route it takes. The Government quite deliberately do not want waste disposal to get into that sort of area. I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance he asked for: that the Department of Transport's legislation and regulations already fully cover the control and carriage of waste in the respect that concerns him.
The second subject of the Bill, in Clause 6, is the power to seize vehicles. That sounds very impressive, indeed rather alarming, but once again I must emphasise what the Bill is not about. Clause 6 is not about punishment, it is about detection. The Government accept that in organised fly-tipping operations it is often hard to identify the person responsible, even though the tipping has been witnessed and the vehicle spotted. We are therefore prepared to live with the rather unusual idea of detaining the vehicle until some person comes out of the woodwork to claim it. The procedures may look cumbersome, but the London Waste Regulation Authority believes that it will be able to make them work. The idea of detaining suspect vehicles started in the LWRA. It deserves every credit for the work it has put into this Bill as its main backers outside Parliament. I hope that the resulting power in Clause 6 will be a modest but useful addition to the weapons of waste authorities. If it does anything to make enforcement more effective and reduce the dreadful effects and costs of fly-tipping, it will be worth while.
There will always be a difficulty in proving complicity in fly-tipping, let alone catching the actual tipper red-handed. The best way is, if you can, to cut off a fly-tipper's supply. He cannot tip it if he cannot get hold of it. Waste comes in the first place from reputable sources—industry, commerce or building contractors. Those persons must be given a responsibility for their waste. That responsibility, which we call the duty of care, must extend right through the chain from the producer to the disposer.
That is why we are working up the new integrated system of waste regulation ready for a major

581
government Bill. This new system will cover waste from the producer right through to the carrier and the disposer and until after the disposal site is itself closed. Our objective throughout is to set a system for control that imposes no unnecessary burden on industry or the public but minimises the risks to the environment and pulic health.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very interested in what the Minister has just said. I am not familiar with the phrase "working up" a Bill. Can he tell us how far the Bill has been worked up and what the timescale is likely to be?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have pencilled in a little further down in my few modest words the noble Lord's name in response to his earlier remarks. I hope that I shall be able to come to that in a moment. Though the words "working up" are a novelty to him, that is what we are attempting to do. There are few opportunities for primary legislation, as the noble Lord will be well aware. The 1974 Act has had to last for 15 years as the basis for waste control. We need to produce a new Act to last us well into the next century. That means that we must get it right.
That is why we have been going about our preparations systematically: first draft proposals, then consultation, then settled proposals, then legislation, then regulations and finally implementation. Consultation papers and announcements have been issued in a steady stream since 1986. The Government's programme of action is now bearing fruit. The register of carriers to be introduced in this Bill is the first component of the new legislation. With this Bill before us today we shall be able to create a register of waste carriers to be publicly available before the new duty of care comes into force.
Producers and holders of waste will have a ready list of legitimate carriers to give waste to. That will allow us to bring the main legislation into force
582
much earlier than otherwise. The nobile Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about time. We shall be looking to bring this Bill into force as soon as possible.
The life of all Private Members' Bills hangs but by a thread. Nevertheless, given the strength of support for this measure, I hope that we shall see it passing into law this summer so that the Government can move quickly to public consultation on the necessary regulations. I wish this Bill well for a speedy, unamended and unobstructed passage through your Lordships' House.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for confirmation of the communication that we had earlier this week from the department. Secondly, I thank him for his good wishes for the passage of the Bill that is now before the House. I also thank the noble Baroness and my noble friend for their support. I look forward to future co-operation and support from all parts of the House in getting this Bill through its further stages and back to the other place for final clearance. Therefore I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern):My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Atomic Energy Act,

National Maritime Museum Act,

Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Act,

Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act,

Scrabster Harbour Order Confirmation Act.

House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess at half-past four o'clock.

  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: FAMILIES
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: FAMILIES
  SIR ALAN WALTERS
  SIR ALAN WALTERS
  ROYAL OPERA HOUSE: TRANSFER OF LAND
  ROYAL OPERA HOUSE: TRANSFER OF LAND
  DUAL CARRIAGEWAY CONSTRUCTION: A.23 SOUTHERN SECTION
  DUAL CARRIAGEWAY CONSTRUCTION: A.23 SOUTHERN SECTION
  FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
  FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE