Sitting of 17 October 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since Prayers are Private Business, may we ascertain that in no circumstances will they ever be recorded by the cameras?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why do you not say to the hon. Lady that the television cameras have not yet started to roll?
Mr. Speaker: They have not yet started, and that is in the domain of the Select Committee. I confirm that Prayers have always been and will remain private.
Mr. David Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you order that the cameras point skywards during Prayers?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should raise that with the Select Committee, too.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    University Funding
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the funding of science, medicine and dentistry in universities from Sir David Smith FRS principal of the University of Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Sir David Smith has made no such representations to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dalyell: With reference to the Edinburgh dental school, whose version of the facts do Ministers believe—Sir David Smith's or Sir Donald McCallum's?
    Mr. Jackson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being the first to ask a question under these novel conditions. It is a tribute entirely appropriate to his prominent position at Question Time that this should be so. The hon. Gentleman implies that the Government have to make a choice between these two distinguished gentlemen, both of whom have given great service to the education system. That is not the Government's job. In this case the decision is made by the Universities Funding Council, and it has done so.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What account was taken by the Universities Funding Council of the job prospects of the 56 people employed at the Edinburgh college of dentistry and what funding will be given to the new postgraduate institute?
    Mr. Jackson: The postgraduate institute is still being considered and there is a good prospect of proceeding in that direction. The matter of redundancies—if any—will have to be sorted out when the reallocations occur, as they

    3
    do from time to time. The decision falls to the Universities Funding Council and it has been made after due deliberation.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Minister realise that he cannot just wash his hands of this miserable affair of the closure of the dental school and that the Government must make available additional funding to ensure that the post-graduate institute is more than just an empty promise? Does he also accept that the cost of closing the school will mean cuts elsewhere in the university unless additional funding is made available? It is not just a matter for the UFC but for the Ministers concerned because they were at the root of the problem to start with.
    Mr. Jackson: The Universities Funding Council is responsible for allocating the funds provided to it by the Government. If the Government were to try to influence the direction of that funding they would have to come to this House to ask for specific approval. It was not the spirit of the Education Reform Act 1988, nor of the Opposition when the Act was passing through Parliament, that we should interfere in detail. The provision of facilities for postgraduate dental education at the postgraduate school, including continuing dental education, is essentially a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his role as the Health Minister for Scotland.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that not only the UFC but the Advisory Board for the Research Councils is responsible for the funding of science? Is he aware that the new Secretary of State has been told by the advisory board that spending on academic research in Britain is £150 million to £200 million below that of our principal European competitors, whether measured as a proportion of GDP or per capita? Is he further aware that the Secretary of State had an appalling record for cutting research and development in his previous job, under the policy of cutting near-market research, but that he is now dealing with a wholly different category of research? We look forward to his implementing the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in full.
    Mr. Jackson: Whatever comparisons of financial inputs are made—many sophisticated comparisons can be made —if we analyse the output in terms of the share of world citations for British science we see that Britain is second only to the United States and is well ahead of France, Germany and Japan.
    As for the ABRC, we are in the middle of the public expenditure survey discussions, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that 90,000 free courses of dental treatment are administered by the facility at Edinburgh, which also provides valuable expert advice on, for instance, the dental treatment of patients with AIDS, and which plays an invaluable role in preventive dentistry in Scotland, where there is a high prevalence of dental caries? Why are the Government washing their hands of the responsibility to persuade the UFC of the need to retain this valuable facility which serves my constituents?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government are not washing their hands: they are implementing an Act of Parliament that gave the decision about these matters to the Universities
    4
    Funding Council, which has taken into account all these factors. The McCallum committee was set up specifically to look into the Health Service implications of the closure, and a decision has now been made by the properly constituted body.

    Freedom of Speech
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the working of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.
    Mr. Jackson: The Government continue to be concerned by events which from time to time demonstrate that the principle of freedom of speech is challenged in some of our universities and polytechnics. My right hon. Friend plans to discuss this matter with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend point out to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the polytechnic directors that the spirit of the Act means that they should not be charging local college Conservative associations £400 or £500 for organising meetings on the spurious grounds of security?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government are worried, as is my hon. Friend, by the continued criticism of the codes of practice that are applied in universities and polytechnics, and the concerns expressed by the critics of those codes of practice have not been allayed. That is why the Government share my hon. Friend's anxiety, and it is one of the issues that we shall take up when we discuss these matters.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is less than a month since my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry was banned from Longlands college in Middlesbrough by the chairman of the Cleveland county education authority on the spurious grounds that as he was going there to open a joint DTI-Department of Education and Science initiative he would be making a party political statement on behalf of the Government? What will my hon. Friend do about that?
    Mr. Jackson: I was not aware of that: it sounds deplorable to judge by my hon. Friend's account. I shall have to look into it.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister be more positive and join me in commending the efforts of universities, polytechnics, colleges—and students—to uphold freedom of speech within the law, and will he accept our full support for this important democratic principle?
    Mr. Jackson: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman supporting the principle of freedom of speech. I wish that it was consistently supported by some of his political sympathisers in the universities and polytechnics.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend continue to be vigilant about the operation of section 43? Has he, for example, recently examined the behaviour of Liverpool university, which actively prevented free speech in a public meeting proposed by the local Conservative student association?
    Mr. Jackson: I am well aware of the situation in Liverpool, I know that it has been difficult and complex.

    5
    As I believe that litigation may be pending in the case, I prefer not to comment, but we have made plain our views on the matter to the vice-chancellor of that university.

    Nottingham City Technology College
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money has been spent by his Department on the Nottingham city technology college.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): To the end of September 1989, just over £7·5 million had been spent on the establishment of the Nottingham city technology college by my Department.
    Mr. Allen: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. I shall start with an easy question, but he may need pencil and paper. If the Government spend £2·8 million on all the schools in Nottinghamshire and £9 million on the one CTC, how much more does that school receive than all the other schools put together? I now have a multiple choice question——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question. We cannot have a multiple choice question.
    Mr. Allen: The Government have abandoned their programme for further CTCs. Is it because, first, they have run out of ideas and it is unfair or, secondly, because they cannot get the money from the Treasury?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I do not need pencil and paper to work out that the Government are not spending £9 million in establishing the CTC. Sponsors are providing £1·5 million and, as I made clear, the Government are spending £7·5 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute, as I have, to the sponsors for their contribution. This is entirely new money. It is a new school in an inner-city area and I think that it will have a substantial beneficial effect. Therefore, it is not possible to relate the two points that the hon. Gentleman made. As I say, it is entirely new money.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no truth in the rumour circulating recently that we are abandoning the CTC programme. CTCs are here to stay because of all the beneficial effects that they will have, and 20 is and remains the target.
    Mr. Knowles: My right hon. Friend knows about the persecution by Councillor Riddell and the Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire county council of any child who attends a CTC. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and the people of Nottingham that his Department is reviewing on a legal basis this kind of savagery?
    Mr. MacGregor: I know to what my hon. Friend is referring as I spoke to the parents of one of the young children when I was in Nottingham recently. We are examining these cases to see what course of action might be open to me. I hope that in this case and in all cases of possible discrimination, in relation to CTCs and grant-maintained schools, decency, good sense and fairness will prevail on the part of the local authorities. It seems wrong that they should attempt to prevent young children from attending facilities such as the music and drama school in the area, not least because the parents are ratepayers and future community charge payers. I hope
    6
    that the local authority will think again. This shows the bigotry and dogmatism of some Socialist local authorities and I hope that the Opposition will repudiate their action.
    Mr. Straw: May I add our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and also congratulate him on his magical powers in attracting into the Chamber far more hon. Members than were even attracted by his predecessor?
    The Secretary of State says that he is not abandoning the CTC programme and that 20 always has been and remains the target. If that is so, what are we to make of the statement in the new year by Sir Cyril Taylor, the chairman of the CTC trust, that the target was "several hundred" or of the statement by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who told the House:
    "We shall have more than 20 CTCs."—[Official Report, 28 February 1989; Vol. 148, c. 148.]
    What are we to make of the statement by the Minister of State, who said in a radio interview:
    "There is no limit on the number of CTCs"?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I am sorry that he did not respond to my invitation to repudiate the actions of Nottinghamshire county council in relation to discrimina-tion against and unfairness to young children. The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of CTCs. Of course, one cannot look into the indefinite future and give a precise number, but the network of 20 colleges is and remains our target and we are making good progress towards achieving it. I suspect that what the hon. Gentleman cannot stomach, because he would love to see the CTCs abandoned, is that they are popular with parents, are backed by industry and commerce, and increase freedom of choice in our inner-city areas. I wish that he would pay a tribute to the sponsors instead of denigrating the achievements that these colleges will bring.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will my right hon. Friend compare the generosity of Mr. Harry Djanogly, who gave of his personal assets to make this school possible, and of the businesses in Nottingham, who gave of their companies' assets for the same purpose, all of whom understand the meaning of the word "charity", with that of the Labour county council, which cannot possibly understand the meaning of the words "charity" and "caring", and is not even prepared to erect traffic signs to protect children in our inner city who want to attend this school? Is that not the absolute pits?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the generosity of the sponsors. They have been generous not only in money terms but in terms of the time and effort that they are committing to the CTCs, which are an important experiment and a new way of bringing together industry and education in the post-technological era.
    I have been to the Nottingham CTC, and the enthusiasm of the staff and the new ideas that are already emerging are most commendable. Both this and the public response to the CTCs contrasts with the reaction of the Labour party, in the House and in the education authority, and if the council is causing difficulties with traffic signs, that is another matter about which I hope it will think again.
    Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that we have returned only today from our summer recess, but I ask for briefer questions and then briefer answers.

    Teachers' Pay
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to establish a new negotiating body for teachers' pay.
    Mr. MacGregor: I expect to hold a further round of meetings shortly with the employers and the teacher unions to discuss new pay determination arrangements.
    Mr. Flannery: Tory Members are showing a surprising enthusiasm for education matters today. Does the Secretary of State know that the teachers were deprived of the right to free negotiation by his predecessor? The right hon. Gentleman said some nice and charming words about teachers, for once, at the Tory party conference. The right to negotiate freely is allowed in every democracy except this one, and the United Nations has condemned the Government for taking it away. When will it be restored, or shall we continue to be allied with the dictatorships in that regard?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is a ludicrous comparison. The International Labour Organisation knows that our aim is to re-establish a permanent pay negotiation machinery. I have already made the position clear. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saw the teaching unions in July and put forward a range of options, of which three are on the table. I have been receiving responses from the unions, and two further ones came in only this weekend. There is a wide variety of views in these responses, and I am now setting dates for meetings with the unions to take the discussions further.
    Mr. Pawsey: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his duties at the Dispatch Box. I urge him to disregard the rantings of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). My right hon. Friend will learn, as we have, that they are full of sound and fury and signify very little. We have no desire to see a son of Burnham or Burnham mark 2. Burnham is discredited, but we welcome the interim advisory committee and the £600 million of additional funding in 1990–91. We also welcome the fact that this represents a doubling of funding over two years.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about me and for what he said about the remit of the interim advisory committee. It is a substantial sum, but a fair one in all the circumstances. I am glad that he recognises that. He has made it clear that it is larger than in the past two years. I was well aware of the educational rantings of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and I regard it as a step forward that he watched what happened at the Tory party conference.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I welcome the appearance of the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box in his new position within the Cabinet. Does he accept that the provision of £600 million has not yet met the concern of teachers that not enough money is promised for the profession in the short term to stop the still substantial flow of teachers away from the profession, both in the short and long term?
    8
    Does the right hon. Gentleman accept also that short-term measures should be implemented in areas of acute need, especially in the capital, during this academic year, and that longer-term measures should be taken so that teachers, especially those in the more senior grades, can be assured that there is a prospect of promotion with reasonable rewards? Without that money, the teaching profession will not have adequate prospects of recovery from his predecessor's policies.
    Mr. MacGregor: First, £600 million is a substantial sum. It is double the remit of the year before last and 55 per cent. up on the remit for the current year's settlement. Secondly, it is not true that there is a substantial outflow of teachers. The number of teachers taking up jobs elsewhere amounts to about 1 per cent. of the total teaching force. Thirdly, I recognise that there are problems in certain geographical areas, of which London is the most notable, and in certain subjects. It is on that issue that I have been focusing above all, and it includes the problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified. He will have noted that in the remit that I have given to the interim advisory committee these problems have been identified as the ones upon which I want it to concentrate.
    Mr. Haselhurst: I understand the attachment that teachers have for negotiating rights, but does my right hon. Friend agree that a pay review body which does not imply old-style face-to-face bargaining remains an acceptable alternative for a professional body?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are three options that I shall be discussing with the teaching unions and others as soon as meetings can be arranged.
    Mr. Straw: Is it not clear that the Secretary of State's decision to bind the interim teachers' pay committee with a ludicrously low cash limit will mean that morale will decline further and that teacher shortages will become much worse? The Secretary of State said when he announced the terms of reference for this IAC inquiry that
    "inflation has now fallen a full 1 per cent. from its summer peak … It will continue to decline further in the months ahead."
    As that statement has been confounded in the space of two weeks—inflation has increased, not decreased—will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear today that if the IAC proposes an increase in teachers' pay that is above the cash limit, he will not dismiss it out of hand?
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, for the reasons I have given already, £600 million is a substantial sum. I hope, too, that he is not saying that there should be no financial limit to the remit of the interim advisory committee. I have made it clear to the committee that £600 million is a firm figure within which I expect it to work.
    Finally, I ask the hon. Gentleman——
    Mr. Straw: What about inflation?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am coming to that. The hon. Gentleman must allow me to answer his first question without interrupting with a request for an answer to his other question. We are talking about a pay settlement for teachers that will start in April 1990—the pay year 1990–91. The interim advisory committee will be meeting

    9
    for some months. The entire purpose of the Government's policy is to have a downward bearing on inflation. We are talking about April 1991, not about today.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When considering the future of teachers' pay, will my right hon. Friend consider the introduction of regional pay, which would allow us to reflect local living costs, especially in areas of the south-east such as Gravesham, which has no territorial allowance at present?
    Mr. MacGregor: The interim advisory committee considered regional pay and recommended that to remedy precise problems it would be more sensible to make use of incentive allowances, and that we are doing substantially. There are 170,000 incentive allowances in place. It is for the committee to consider what should be done with incentive allowances this year. However, it was its clear view—one with which I went along—that it would be better to have an incentive allowance system that could more precisely target particular issues or problems rather than a widespread regional pay structure.

    Training Grant
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the local education authority training grants; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Details of the arrange-ments for the local education authority training grants scheme for 1990–91, including provisional funding allocations, were announced in the Department's circular No. 20/89, which was issued on 18 August and copies of which are available in the Library.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for her answer. Can the hon. Lady estimate the cost in staff time of organising the two different categories of grant—national and local? When will the review be completed?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly how far organisation within individual schools has progressed as I do not have that information to hand. The local education authorities' local priorities are being subsumed because they are paying more attention to the national priorities, which means that more work is being carried out on training within schools, especially in the primary sector.

    Teacher Supply
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to improve the teacher supply in London.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend is determined to assist local education authorities in London to overcome teacher recruitment and retention difficulties.
    The Department, the Inner London education authority and the London boroughs, together with the teaching as a career unit in the Department of Education and Science, will be co-operating in a Londonwide recruitment campaign. Education support grant will be available from next April for local recruitment measures to attract more mature new entrants and re-entrants. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, the interim advisory
    10
    committee has also been asked to look at measures to improve supply in areas where vacancy rates are highest —especially in inner London.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that her reply will be of no comfort to those children who today are still without teachers, or to those parents who are concerned that their children are not receiving a proper education? Is she further aware that a survey of the London borough of Lambeth today has shown that 43 primary schools are short of teachers, that they expect to be short for the remainder of the term and that that is a common position throughout inner London?
    Is not one problem the fact that the London weighting for teachers of £1,377 a year is less than half of that paid to bank staff and the lowest weighting in any public sector employment? Should not the Minister address herself to the problem of teachers' salaries, their negotiating position and, above all, the extraordinarily high housing costs? Is there not a need for decent. cheap housing to attract teachers to London so that our children do not suffer because of the teacher shortage?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Like all hon. Members, we do not want children to be away from school because of the difficulties in recruiting teachers. That is why we have invited the interim advisory committee to address the problems of pay, especially in inner London areas. We are also conscious of the high cost of housing, especially in inner London, and recognise that that problem needs to be addressed. We are currently discussing that matter not only with the Inner London education authority, but with the individual inner London boroughs that will take over education responsibilities.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that teachers will be attracted to or back to the London boroughs if those boroughs come forward with schemes of excellence, as is happening in Wandsworth? Should not the pay structure be sufficiently flexible to recognise both the teacher shortage areas and teacher excellence? Should it not be made easier for teachers or would-be teachers wishing to undergo training to obtain grants for courses, whether part-time or second courses?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. The more flexible the local authorities that undertake responsibility for education are in putting together packages to recruit and retain teachers, the better. Authorities will recruit more teachers if they are flexible in their recruitment policies and allow job sharing and possibly supply teaching for certain hours in schools. It is also important to provide some sort of training for those who wish to come back into the profession.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister has referred to the increased cost of housing in London, but is she aware that in east London the problem is particularly acute because of the increase in commercial activity in docklands and the free market in housing? Since the Department of Education and Science has not given the London borough of Newham permission to build proper schools in docklands, will she ensure that London weighting reflects the full increase in the cost of housing, because if she does not, she and the Secretary of State will be depriving us not only of schools in docklands but of teachers?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As I said a moment ago, that is one of the matters to which the interim advisory committee will be paying attention and it is specifically set out in its remit.
    Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the London borough of Havering which has employed a significant number of teachers from the EC, particularly from Germany, who are a welcome and valuable addition to its teaching staff?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome comment. We have always recruited, and have welcomed recruiting, from overseas and I am glad to hear that the London borough of Havering has been so successful. I hope that others will follow its good example.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister realise that to parents whose children are losing education in inner London at the moment her statements this afternoon will sound remarkably complacent and indifferent? Does she recall that when her Department published a survey of teacher shortages at the end of the summer vacation, the Minister said that a figure of 3,600 vacancies was "most encouraging". Most of those vacancies were in inner London, but would the Minister be so complacent if they occurred in the private sector and in the sort of schools to which the Secretary of State sent his children?
    Mrs. Rumbold: At a time when we are supposed to be working hard to ensure that children have teachers, it is a great pity that Opposition Members can try only to talk up a crisis, as they did in the summer. There is no crisis in the teaching profession as a whole. There has to be urgent consideration of the difficulties in inner London which we are trying to attack. The Inner London education authority, whose responsibility it is, came late in the day to this problem.

    Personal and Social Education
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the national curriculum will include personal and social education courses; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Personal and social education will be part of the whole curriculum.
    Mr. Thurnham: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities. Given the growing problem of drug and alcohol abuse, will my hon. Friend require all schools to give appropriate education on the dangers involved?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. He has made representations to me on behalf of his constituents and the House knows of his commitment to the interests of disabled people and children with special education needs. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The place of personal and social education, which embraces education on drug abuse and alcohol misuse, is safeguarded by section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988, which requires the school curriculum to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome good social education, but is my hon. Friend aware that in many
    12
    schools it is used as a substitute for religious education, as required under the Education Act 1944, to the extent that religious education seems to have disappeared altogether from many schools? Is he also aware that although the Education Reform Act 1988 requires religious education in schools to be predominantly Christian, many local education authorities are producing syllabuses which do not even mention the word Christian? Will he investigate those authorities and make sure that they fulfil their statutory responsibilities?
    Mr. Howarth: There is a distinct requirement that schools should provide religious education and that requirement was reaffirmed in the Education Reform Act 1988 which reiterated and strengthened the provision in the 1944 Act. If my hon. Friend can give me any instances or evidence of what he says, I shall be happy to look into it.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister put paid to the rumour that was circulated at the Tory party conference that Bernard Ingham and one or two others are demanding——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must have something to do with the national curriculum, not Bernard Ingham.
    Mr. Skinner: Bang on, Mr. Speaker. You have hit the nail on the head.
    —that one of the subjects in the national curriculum must be the history of the Tory party?
    Mr. Howarth: As is right, one of the requirements of personal and social education under the national curriculum is education in citizenship. Surely both sides of the House should welcome the obligation placed on schools to educate children to participate in our democratic process.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of children in secondary schools are being educated in grammar schools operated by local education authorities; and what was the percentage 10 years ago.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In January 1989, 3·3 per cent. of secondary school children were being educated in local authority-maintained grammar schools, compared with 4·2 per cent. in January 1979.
    Mr. Taylor: Is that not rather disappointing progress after 10 years of Conservative Government? Does my hon. Friend agree that grammar schools offer a better opportunity to able children from working-class homes than the territorial comprehensive scheme which, basically, creates class segregation in education? Would the Minister be willing to spare some of his busy time to visit either Southend-on-Sea—where we have four grammar schools operated by the local authority—or Northern Ireland, to see how better overall results can be obtained in A-levels and GCSEs through that form of education? Will the Government at least look into the educational consequences of grammar schools?
    Mr. Howarth: It is no part of our policy—as it was part of the policy of the last Labour Government—to impose any particular scheme or organisation on schools. Under the Education Act 1980, it is for authorities to put forward

    13
    proposals for reorganisation when they judge such action appropriate to the needs of their areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers any such proposals on their merits, although he certainly has regard to the academic record and academic prospects of individual schools, and will of course recognise that many of our grammar schools embody a fine academic tradition. That factor, and parental preferences, are always taken into account by him.
    Ms. Armstrong: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I have it on the highest authority that he is a listening Minister, but that he was not very interested in resources when he was a Whip.
    The real meaning of the figures that the Minister has read out is that the Government have closed 100 grammar schools—40 per cent. Does that not demonstrate that parents throughout the land are saying that they want their children to be educated in comprehensive schools which are committed to equality of opportunity for all children, regardless of their background, race or gender? Can we hope that the Government's future policy for dealing with the children of this nation will demonstrate a commitment similar to that of their parents?
    Mr. Howarth: I was happy to listen at least to the first part of the hon. Lady's question, for which I was grateful.
    In fact, I did not read out any figures, as such, so perhaps the hon. Lady herself was not listening very closely. What I said was that we had no dogmatic view about the virtues of any particular system of organisation. We have regard to the quality of schools, and to the particular needs of local areas. One of our guiding purposes is to enhance freedom of choice, so that parents have a right that we regard as proper: that is why I am glad to note that grant-maintained schools and CTCs, along with grammar schools, add to the elements of choice and variety in our system.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Has not diversity of provision in various types of school—including single-sex schools—been the strength of education in this country? Is it not a fact that what parents and pupils want above all are good teaching and good quality education, and is that not what the present Government have sought, successfully, to establish?
    Mr. Howarth: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks with enormous experience and authority. That is why the twin thrusts of our policy are to enhance choice, and to ensure a proper curriculum that enables children to have the skills, knowledge and understanding that they require.

    National Curriculum
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that there will be sufficient teachers qualified in all the necessary subjects to teach the national curriculum in its further stages from September 1990.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am taking the requirements of the national curriculum fully into account in setting the intakes to initial teacher training, in revising the criteria for initial teacher training courses, in planning the LEA
    14
    in-service training grant scheme and education support grants and in managing the action programme on teacher supply.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he acknowledge that the secondary school staffing survey which has just been published shows that in 15 out of the 25 subject categories there are fewer teachers now with post-A level qualifications than there were in May 1984? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that an HMI survey for May of this year showed that 28 per cent. of English teachers and 27 per cent. of maths teachers did not have a post-A level qualification and that those entering teacher training now, in key subjects such as maths and English, are not up to the targets being set by his Department? Would he like his children to be taught by non-qualified teachers?
    Mr. MacGregor: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that a recent HMI survey on science in primary schools demonstrates that in primary schools, teachers without the specialist back-ground can, with proper training, perform the role very effectively. I can of course deal now with only one or two of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. There is a problem, which is shared by all employers, in relation to certain scarce skills where there exists in the economy as a whole a high demand. This is particularly so in maths and science. We are producing a flexible range of policies to deal with that, both in recruitment and in the way in which teachers are paid.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur.
    Mrs. Ewing: In view of the current crisis in the Scottish fishing industry, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain why the Government are steadfastly refusing to invoke the mechanisms that exist to give access to European Community funding for a temporary lay-up scheme and for longer-term decommissioning schemes? Or is it the Government's intention to allow that noble industry and the thousands of jobs that depend on it to be forced into sequestration and bankruptcy through savage quotas, soaring interest rates and Government inertia?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I—indeed, the whole Government —understand the hon. Lady's anxiety about the problems facing the Scottish fishing industry. We are urgently considering the measures that are needed to deal with the situation, but as she will appreciate in relation to laying-up and decommissioning schemes, one needs to be sure that they would be more effective and provide better value for money than alternative approaches.
    Mr. Hanley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while high interest rates may be welcome to many depositors, particularly the elderly, they are difficult for many borrowers and in some cases are absolutely disastrous? Nevertheless, does he agree that the battle against inflation, which affects 100 per cent. of people in this country, is even more important?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's last point. He is right to draw attention to the fact that high interest rates not merely discourage borrowing but encourage saving, which is in itself advantageous. But far more important than that, they are a crucial instrument in the fight against inflation.
    Mr. Kinnock: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how he expects families with an average mortgage to cope with repayments that have increased in the last year by £90 a month?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman should understand well that high interest rates have been used, and are an essential instrument, in the battle against inflation. They were used by the Government whom he supported, although he was not a member of that Government, and it must be said that the inflation rate achieved by that Government reached a pinnacle of 27 per cent., which was far more than anything else disastrous to mortgage payers.
    Mr. Kinnock: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously cannot answer the question that I asked, may I ask him to say for how long mortgage payers must go on paying huge monthly sums simply to foot the bill left to them by the incompetence of the Government's policies.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made plain that interest rates will have to remain at the level that is necessary for so long as is necessary to achieve success against inflation. I emphasise and repeat that that is of far greater importance than the immediate short-term hardship and consequence of paying high interest rates —[Interruption.] The experience of the last Labour Government demonstrated plainly that if there is one enemy of home ownership as well as of saving and living standards it is the enemy of inflation. We are determined to succeed in the battle against inflation.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one reason why our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is listened to with such care and attention in Kuala Lumpur is that she, alone of party leaders in this House, is backed by a party which believes in a strong, consistent and comprehensible defence policy?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friend is right in that respect. One sure way of diminishing the respect for the Prime Minister of this country would be for her to be supported by the defence policies of the Labour party.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that it is mere coincidence that the average level of inflation for countries outside full membership of the European monetary system is double that for those inside it? How much longer will pensioners, mortgage holders and industry have to pay for the Prime
    16
    Minister's lonely obsession with keeping Britain out of the EMS and keeping in her own hands the power to fiddle the economy for electoral purposes?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made the view of the Government entirely clear and as the Chancellor stated in an interview last week:
    "The Prime Minister expressed the view of the Government and that is very clear. There is just one Government view—that is the view of the EMS which the Prime Minister expressed at the time of the Madrid European Council. We are committed to joining the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS and she explained the circumstances. There is no change on that."
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the announcement by six police forces that they are combining to act against the outrageous acid house parties that have been taking place in constituencies including mine? Will he ensure that the Government's proposals to assist the police are brought forward as soon as possible?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As a fellow Member for a Surrey constituency I share my hon. Friend's concern that there should be effective action against such events. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking at the matter with the utmost urgency and that he will bring forward whatever proposals are necessary.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wardell: While accepting that part of Britain's leisure class who sit on the Conservative Benches are basking in the luxury of high interest rates for their idle balances, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the majority of home owners and industrialists in Britain would derive some comfort from Britain joining the EMS rather than seeing the daily spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer clinging desperately to the rate of interest like a dead man clings to a live electric wire?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me reaffirm our total concern and understanding of the burdens imposed by high interest rates, but our recognition of the fact that success against inflation is not possible if one rules out high interest rates. It is for that reason that we are sustaining the policies presently in place. We have also reaffirmed, as the Prime Minister did after the Madrid European Council, our intention to join the exchange rate mechanism, the ERM —we are already members of the EMS—but, among the other things my right hon. Friend emphasised, we must first get our inflation down.
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the ready acceptance by the General Dentists Services Council of its new contract? Does he

    17
    share my hope that doctors will quickly recognise the advantages of the new contracts to them and their patients?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Clearly, the whole House will welcome the agreement by the representatives of the dental profession to their new contract. Like the contract proposed for the general practitioners, it sets out to reward the hardest working who provide services that patients need. The general practitioners have always accepted the need for a new contract from next April, because the current one is some 25 years old. That contract is also in the patients' interests. It encourages preventive medicine, provides more services for the elderly, ensures the greater availability of doctors, and makes it easier for patients to choose their own GPs. We very much hope—and I hope that the whole House will join me in this—that GPs will be ready to accept their new contract in the same spirit as the dental profession.
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Ruddock: What advice has the Lord President for people on income support, as it is calculated that they need to spend 40 to 50 per cent. of their disposable income on food in order to eat a healthy diet? Why have the Government suppressed the Health Education Authority report which proves that to be the case?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The simplest advice to those on income support as well as to other citizens is to continue supporting the present Government who have secured high and rising living standards for the population as a whole, who have ensured that those living standards are shared by those on income support and who have secured an increase in total social security spending of more than one third during their time in office. All those successes would be cast away if the people on income support were to neglect the advice that I have offered.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as more than one third of the Commonwealth member states deny human rights, it would be hypocritical for them to seek to pursue further sanctions against South Africa this week? Will he convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the Commonwealth should seek to put its own house in order first?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that the Commonwealth has frequently adopted standards which it sets itself and seeks to achieve in relation to human rights. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will remind the Commonwealth of those at the conference in Kuala Lumpur. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says about the futility of urging further sanctions against South Africa at present, when we see evidence from what is happening in South Africa that changes are taking place there. I cannot imagine a more futile time to step up sanctions than the present.
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    18
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eastham: May I inform the Leader of the House that yesterday I visited my local optician for an eye test? The young woman advised me that, during this Session, eye tests have gone down by 30 per cent. and in some of the worst areas, by 70 per cent. Already opticians are noting the deterioration in the condition of many people's eyes. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House how long it will be before the Government decide to relent on this policy, make some changes and revert it back to the National Health Service as it should be?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must confess that it defies belief that observations of the kind that the hon. Gentleman reports should be made so soon after the changes of which he complains. I must remind him that if we were to follow the advice of the Labour party and remove all those instruments that have been introduced for increasing efficiency in the Health Service and all the charges currently in place, the Health Service would be some £1¼ billion worse off, to its great disadvantage.
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the finding of several guns and a nail bomb at the acid house party that took place over the weekend in my constituency adds a sinister new twist to the saga of acid house parties? Can he give the House and the country an assurance today that the Government will take effective but measured action to ensure that in future these parties will not be able to take place in the ad hoc and covert manner that they do today?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that aspect of that party, but it is worth remembering that the party was largely frustrated by prompt and effective action by police forces. That has been the experience with a growing number of cases in several of the home counties. We should pay tribute to the police authorities for the success that they are already achieving. I shall certainly see that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes account of the additional points that my hon. friend makes in relation to future conduct.
    Ms. Short: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Ms. Short: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the problems that we have with the balance of payments and with inflation are very serious? Speaking on behalf of the Government, as he is today, will he accept responsibility for the errors of economic management that have brought this about?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady must acknowledge that there have been substantial successes in Government policy, including sustained success against inflation. The present level of inflation was only once bettered during the

    19
    five years of Labour Government. We have sustained eight years of continuous economic growth, surpassing all records in manufacturing investment, output and other
    20
    economic indicators. We are determined to maintain those successes. That is why we are determined to maintain the balance and thrust of our present economic policy.

Digital Clocks
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make about the operation of the new digital clocks. It might help if I were to tell the House that, during the recess, new digital clocks have been installed in the Chamber. They are designed to assist the Chair and hon. Members in the timing of their speeches. Whenever the Chair calls on an hon. Member to make a speech on which there is a specific time limit, for example applications under Standing Order No. 20 and on days when a 10-minute speech limit has been imposed by the Chair, the Clerks at the Table will operate the clock. Half a minute before the conclusion of the time limit allowed, the digital clocks on each side of the Chair will flash intermittently. [Laughter.] Order. It is designed to be helpful to Members. When that time has been reached there will be a light to indicate that the time is up. I hope that the new system will enable hon. Members who are speaking within a set time limit to know exactly when that limit is about to be reached.

Interest Rates
3.32 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of considering a matter that is specific, important and requires urgent consideration, namely,
"The rise in interest rates to 15 per cent. and the failures of Government economic policy."
The matter is specific because, after 15 months of the highest interest rates, the worst inflation, and the biggest trade deficits with our major competitors, and after 15 months of sacrifices from millions of home owners, inflation is still rising, the trade gap is still widening and interest rates are still moving up.
This has all taken place in the real economy before and irrespective of any impact from this week's stock exchange fluctuations. On Friday, inflation rose to 7·6 per cent.—the highest in Europe but for Greece. A week before, interest rates went up to 15 per cent.—the worst in Europe. Next Tuesday's trade figures will confirm that the balance of payments deficit is not only the worst in Europe, but the worst in our history.
For a year, the Chancellor has promised that inflation is a temporary blip on the road to zero inflation. It is not. For more than a year, he has sought to convince us that the trade deficit would correct itself. It has not. For a year, his advice to home owners has been to cut back on something else, and thousands now cannot. For a year, he has compounded, rather than corrected, the errors of his policy by his exclusive reliance on high interest rates.
Industry is paying an extra £1·5 billion for its borrowing costs, small businesses by the thousands face difficulties and home owners by the millions are paying an average of £80 a month more for their mortgages—all the result of the mistaken policies of a discredited Chancellor in a failed Government.
The matter is important, because in addition to the damage to businesses and home owners, the Chancellor's greatest and most central failure is his failure to create the long-term stable environment for industry that a modern economy needs. With imports even this year rising twice as fast as exports, with our deficits concentrated in the new high-technology industries, with no new policy for training or research or investment in the regions that could bring the deficit down, the Government persist in claiming that the trade deficit, even approaching £20 billion, is a matter of no consequence, to the extent that the Chancellor did not mention it in his Conservative conference speech and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was not even allowed a conference speech to mention it.
The matter requires urgent consideration because a change of national economic policy is essential in the interests of the nation. Before the Chancellor's speech to the Mansion House, before he completes his Autumn Statement and before he makes further mistakes by his mismanagement, he should be forced to defend his policy to a more critical audience than the Conservative party conference in Blackpool——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

23
"the rise in interest rates to 15 per cent. and the failure of the Government's policies."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to take into account the requirements of the order and announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman 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 business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Ulster Defence Regiment
3.37 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 announcement by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic that the basis for and the future of the Ulster Defence Regiment would be on the agenda of tomorrow's Anglo-Irish conference."
A concentrated and concerted effort is being made by the IRA, the Dublin Government, the Social Democratic and Labour party and a certain unextraditable Roman Catholic priest utterly to discredit the Ulster Defence Regiment, which has lost 180 members by the murderous actions of Republican terrorists in Northern Ireland.
The aim is the abandonment of the regiment. The night before Dr. Garret FitzGerald and Mr. Dick Spring signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement at Hillsborough, they made it clear in Dublin that their aim was to put the regiment out of existence.
The regiment has been accused of leaking information to loyalist paramilitary groups about suspected IRA terrorists. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has also been accused. As a consequence, members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been treated as terrorists. In a round-up in Northern Ireland using 300 policemen, 28 of them were arrested. That public exercise pinpointed where those men lived and put them and their families at grave risk. They should have been taken in for questioning when they were on duty, as policemen were taken in for questioning on similar charges. Many of those men have been released with no charge against them, while a number have been charged on petty charges and released on bail. Only two have been charged with obtaining information.
Every day the campaign against this regiment goes on. Now, on the eve of another Anglo-Irish meeting, Mr. Haughey lends his support to this process. As the House of Commons voted the Ulster Defence Regiment into existence, surely it has a right to debate the regiment's future publicly. Just because some members of the regiment have gone wrong, that does not mean that the whole regiment is to be condemned. I do not hear anyone anywhere saying that because the majority of the Irish Republican Army killers belong to the Roman Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church should be abandoned. I say——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to curtail the hon. Member's speech, but he has had his three minutes.
The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by the Irish Prime Minister that the basis and the future of the UDR will be on the agenda of tomorrow's Anglo-Irish conference in Belfast."
I have listened with care to the hon. Member, but I regret that the matter which he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Kurdish Asylum-seekers
3.41 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: 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,
"those Kurdish asylum-seekers scheduled for removal from the United Kingdom this afternoon should not be removed and the removal of other Kurdish asylum-seekers should be suspended in view of the fear felt by Kurdish asylum-seekers."
I raise this matter because of the serious situation in this country. Since May, a considerable number of Kurdish people from Turkey have arrived in Britain and sought political asylum. They have been interviewed by welfare organisations, medical foundations and a number of other legal practices. The thread running through the evidence is that they have been badly treated in Turkey, have suffered torture and oppression and have a well-founded and legitimate fear of returning to Turkey. That must be the basis for an asylum application.
One of these people, Mr. Siho Iqueuen, sought asylum in this country. His removal was deferred two or three times, and eventually he was taken on 4 October to the Harmondsworth detention centre. The Home Office was again informed about the deep concern about his medical condition. The man barricaded himself in his cell, together with one of his friends. He set fire to himself and, after suffering 60 per cent. burns, died a few days later in Mount Vernon hospital. I understand that another Kurdish asylum-seeker is due to be removed from this country today. His case has been adopted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The United Nations recognises him as a refugee. It is of deep concern when a body such as the UNHCR puts pressure on the British Government to mend their ways in dealing with asylum cases. This matter merits debate in the House.
What has been happening since May this year is a disgrace to the British Government and this country. It is a sordid tale of people who have fled oppression and torture. People who have a well-founded fear of persecution have had their asylum applications refused. The British Government refuse to give financial support to the local authorities and voluntary organisations that have done wonderful work in supporting these people, who are threatened with removal from this country. One person who was sent back last week was held by the police for two days as soon as he stepped off the plane. I am concerned about whether that is the end of the story.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will recognise the urgency and seriousness of this matter and that you will be prepared to grant a special debate on this vital matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"those Kurdish asylum-seekers scheduled for removal from the United Kingdom this afternoon should not be removed and the removal of other Kurdish asylum-seekers should be suspended in view of the level of fear felt by the Kurds."
Again, I am sorry to give a disappointing response. Although I have listened with care to the hon. Member, I regret that the matter does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit the hon. Member's application to the House.

Scottish Fishing Industry
3.45 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: 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 crisis facing the Scottish fishing industry."
Fishing is one of the basic natural resource industries of Scotland and is 10 times as important to the Scottish economy as to the United Kingdom's economy as a whole. Offshore and onshore, between the catchers, processers and support industries, it employs 30,000 people. In many coastal communities around Scotland, it is by far the dominant industry. Now the industry is in crisis, caught in the vice between falling revenues and rising costs, between low and erratic supplies and penal interest rates. In particular, the North sea haddock quota, which provides the mainstay of the Scottish fleet, is exhausted.
Thoughout the last year, fishing Members of Parliament have warned of the developing crisis and called for policy action. Instead, we have seen a mixture of complacency and confusion on the part of the Government. That complacency was well in evidence in the Lord President's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) a few moments ago.
Fishing Members of Parliament and the communities we represent are looking for answers from the Government. We want to know why the structures and licensing policy has been in suspended animation for two years. We want to know if the Government will take advantage of European funding for a lay-up scheme to provide major assistance to the industry. We want to know if and when the Government will introduce a decom-misioning policy to restructure the fleets and reduce catching capacity in a humane manner. We want to know when the industry can expect any response to its imaginative proposals for real conservation of fishing stocks as opposed to the ineffective system of low quotas. We want to know from the Government by what mysterious process the wrecking of the finances of the fishing fleet in the north-east of Scotland through penal interest rates contributes to the reduction of inflationary pressures generated in the south-east of England.
The Scottish fishing industry is caught between a Scottish Fisheries Minister who cannot act and a Minister of Agriculture who will not act. In his first comment on the crisis, the new Minister blamed the fishermen and accepted no governmental responsibility. Given the history of the Government's inactivity in this crisis, that is an absurd claim and the Minister may wish to know that his indifference to the plight of the industry has caused enormous offence in the north-east of Scotland. Clearly he does not, or says he does not, understand the seriousness of the position. We need a debate to educate the Minister, to tell him that Scotland's fishing industry will not be allowed to be sacrificed on the altar of his complacency, to demand an answer to our questions and to force the policy action which is required to save this vital industry and the communities it supports.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of

27
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 crisis facing the Scottish fishing industry through the exhaustion of this year's North sea haddock quota."
Again, I have to say that I have listened to what the hon. Member has said with great care, but I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Clocks and Lighting
3.49 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter arises out of the statement which you made to the House earlier. Could the House be told by whose authority the flashing clocks were installed, and at what cost? Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) finds the lighting in the Chamber extremely bright, and he is not alone in that. Are we not supposed to be saving energy? Why do we need another eight enormous lights over and above the other lights which we have in the Chamber, particularly when, as I understand it, mercifully, we are not yet being shown on television?
Mr. Speaker: The clocks were recommended by the House of Commons Services Committee and I hope that the House will agree that they are an improvement and help Members.
As for the lighting in the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman well knows that there is to be an experimental televising of the Chamber and these are temporary lights. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) who sits next to the hon. Gentleman, finds them a bit bright.

Points of Order
3.50 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to ministerial accountability to this House, you may remember that on 16 May there was a debate on Government publicity in which reference was made to a Cabinet Office minute on guidelines on the nature and content of allowable publicity. The guidelines mentioned that publicity should be objective and that it "should not be personalised".
In the course of the past few days, most hon. Members will have received a document entitled "Britain in Southern Africa" which purports to be an explanation—paid for by the Foreign Office, and hence by us—of British foreign policy towards southern Africa. The document, which is blue, contains a union jack and a photograph of the Prime Minister adorns the front page——
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the issue for me in this? It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Grocott: It is. In the course of 23 pages, the document, which was paid for but not authorised by us, displays five colour pictures of the Prime Minister. I would not have the slightest objection to the document if it had been paid for by Conservative central office, but I object to having to pay for it myself. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to determine by what authority public money has been spent on this blatant party political propaganda.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter to do with order in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must raise it with the Government; I have no doubt that what he has just said has been heard.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some time between now and 21 November, could you arrange for the Procedure Committee to look again at the wording of Standing Order No. 20? It is obvious that all the applications this afternoon concerned important matters—no one could deny that—but the word "urgency" needs special definition. If it is not redefined, our proceedings will begin day after day with application after application. Hon. Members are abusing the procedure by making the speeches that they would make in the debates, if you granted them.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Procedure Committee. The words are a matter for me. I shall examine them carefully, but I accept what the hon. Member has said. Today I took into account the fact that we have been away for some weeks. Inevitably after such an absence, there is a large number of Standing Order No. 20 applications, but I hope that when the time comes to televise the House procedure will not be abused—it is important for Back Benchers.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I took careful note of what you have just said, and, reading between the lines, it seems to me that you may have been saying that when television comes in on 21 November applications under Standing Order No. 20 may be looked at more carefully, and perhaps refused, because of television. I hope that there will be no change in the rules merely because of the cameras——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not put words or even thoughts into my mind.
Mr. Skinner: If the television cameras will make no difference to applications under Standing Order No. 20, which usually deal with topical issues and which many would argue—although not today, because we have a good debate to come—are more sensible than the planned debates because of their topicality; and if hon. Members, irrespective of cameras or anything else, want to raise important matters which affect their own constituencies, I hope that it will not be said that that is an abuse of procedure. Most of the matters raised today are important and affect the nation or, in some instances, constituencies, so I hope that consideration of these matters will not be conducted against a background of television producers trying to change the system to suit themselves.
Mr. Speaker: In order to forestall any other hon. Member who may have thoughts along those lines, may I say that I strongly adhere to the view that, when television comes here, it must adjust itself to the procedures of the House. I have no intention of reducing the number of opportunities that Members have to raise important matters through Standing Order No. 20 applications. I was merely commenting on the point which the hon. Gentleman made—and this is a supposition—that when the cameras are here, there might be an incentive for some hon. Members to raise matters that are not entirely legitimate. Knowing the House as I do, I am sure that that will not be the case.
Mr. David Winnick: May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that about 10 years ago the Procedure Committee recommended that there should be restrictions on applications under Standing Order No. 9, now Standing Order No. 20? Fortunately, that recommenda-tion was substantially defeated in the House. Do you not agree that, regardless of television cameras and bearing in mind how restricted Back Benchers already are, any further restrictions would be totally wrong?
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the procedure about points of order has been changed and they are now taken at a different time. I am not criticising that, but it would be extremely unfortunate if an hon. Member who had come to the view that a matter was sufficiently important was not able to try to raise it under Standing Order No. 20 even though we know that such applications are usually rejected. I remind you that, between 1974 and 1979, when the Conservatives were in opposition, there were on average five or six applications every day. You may remember that, Mr. Speaker, because you had a different role at that time.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will not pursue this matter because, as I have already said and I now repeat, Standing Order No. 20 applications are an important opportunity for Back Benchers to put a point before the House in prime time. I have no intention of making that more restrictive. The House has charged me with responsibility for making a judgment as to whether the applications meet the criteria. That is a difficult matter and when the time comes to televise this place I and the whole House must consider whether those outside will know why the Chair may turn down an application. We may all be aware of the criteria for the Chair turning down or

31
granting an application but an explanation must be given to those who are watching outside because they may not know the rules.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a different point of order in connection with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) about the television lights? This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and you and many hon. Members have expressed concern about the lack of attendance in the Chamber. The heat caused by these lights is acutely uncomfortable on the Back Benches; those of us who are members of fitness clubs can tell the House that it is roughly equivalent to the heat of a sauna. Although this is an experiment, may we appeal to you to ask the Services Committee or those responsible to ensure that the temperature in the Chamber is considerably reduced, because if it is not the attendance will be worse than before?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am glad to say that there was a good attendance at Question Time and I welcome that. This is the first day of the experiment. The hon. Member should make his representations to the Select Committee looking into these matters. I share the hon. Member's views about the generation of heat, because I am wearing rather more clothing than he is.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I return to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)? Surely the matter that he raised is one of concern for you and the House, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with it. It may well be a matter of concern, but it is not a matter of order in the House and is not therefore a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman should take the matter up with the Government. He must not take it up with me or with the Government through me.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an easy way out of the problem. There could be a picture in that document of the Leader of the Opposition being arrested by the Tanzanian police.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We would do well to move on.
Mr. Tony Banks rose——
Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I can say no more than I have already said to his hon. Friend and to him. It is not a matter of order for me.

Community Care
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
Mr. Speaker: Two right hon. Members and many hon. Members have indicated their wish to participate in the debate. Therefore, I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. If hon. Members who are called before that time also try to stay within that limit, it may be possible, in fairness to all hon. Members, to take that limit off later in the debate.
4.1 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): I am encouraged by the announcement that you have just made, Mr. Speaker, which shows that there is to be a full participation in this debate by a wide range of hon. Members, because that is precisely what was in our minds when we tabled this subject for a debate on the first day of the spillover session. As the House will be aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, in his statement in July, made clear the Government's broad acceptance of the principles set out in Roy Griffiths' report, but said that further work would be done in the subsequent months leading to a White Paper, which it is intended should be published towards the end of the spillover period, early in November.
It is of the essence of these arrangements that the fullest account should be taken of the views of all groups and interests. That is what we have been seeking to do during the recess, with organisations representing the disabled and the providers of care, with local authority representatives, with the Association of Directors of Social Services, and so on. Today represents an opportunity to have the most important consultation of all, because the Government will hear what the House thinks about an issue that is of fundamental importance to all of us, and of which all of us, as Members of Parliament, are only too well aware because of our pastoral work within our constituencies.
Community care is of the most direct relevance to the interests of significant numbers of our constituents and, whatever our other differences, we should be capable of discussing it objectively and of recognising the enormous benefits that will flow from our endeavours to move these policies forward. By community care, we mean policies that enable people to live as full a life as possible, in whatever setting best suits their needs. That may be in their own home, sheltered housing, a group home, a hostel or a residential home.
An increasing number of vulnerable people live in our community and they will require assessment under these new arrangements for community care. Therefore, our aspiration to provide individually tailored care will command support across the political spectrum and will be recognised as a necessity. Obviously, the real test is not that we accept that this is an important topic or that we accept that something needs to be done, but that we are able to create a framework that will enable us to turn these high aspirations into reality. That was the practical task with which Roy Griffiths was asked to deal in his report, and on which we have been engaged for some months now. I hope that the House will turn its attention to that practical task for the next few hours.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend has referred to a suitable setting. Is he aware that in Lancashire the full cost of a local authority home place is £190, whereas these arrangements allow for only £140 in a private home? Is it not possible to raise that level so that people can make a choice and may have a chance to keep these excellent private community homes going?
Mr. Mellor: It is of significance to know the proper level of support for those who are in long-term residential care and the proper level of charging that should be made for that support. One of our aspirations is to have a range of different providers, whether from the private, voluntary or local government sectors. Such a range would establish a framework within which it should be possible for good care to be offered at a sensible cost to the public purse.
It is obvious that long-term residential care will be an expensive option, and we cannot afford to neglect the necessity to obtain value for money. We have discovered —this was one of the primary reasons for wanting to reopen this area—that there has been a massive movement of resources into long-term residential care, and this has had implications for the development of other forms of care.
Over the decade there has been a movement in the cost of private residential care from £10 million to nearly £1 billion for this financial year. With a movement of such significance, we have to ask ourselves whether it is necessary, whether value for money is obtained and, if it is not, whether enhancing domiciliary care might be a better option for some of those who, as a result of the perverse incentives which Roy Griffiths has identified, had to go into long-term residential care. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibilities for social security and the disabled is only too well aware that one of the essential matters that the Government have always to keep under review is the adequacy of the financal provision that is made to meet needs.
Mr. David Ashby: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Mellor: I am troubled because, if I continue to give way, especially so early in my speech, I shall detain the House and prevent others from participating in the debate. I shall give way to my hon. Friend but I hope that the House will understand that I shall not be able always to give way to others.
Mr. Ashby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the disparity between those who pay for their own care and those for whom the state pays? Should there not be tax relief for those who are bearing the cost of residential care because they are disabled or for some other reason?
Mr. Mellor: It is an interesting question, but my response will not give my hon. Friend any satisfaction. Tax relief is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I was saying by way of introduction that, while we all can agree on the need for an effective framework for community care, it is not a policy that can be easily implemented successfully. We have increased sharply the resources and the manpower that are devoted to community care over the past 10 years. As I shall demonstrate, these have been years of achievement in community care. As a central starting point and as an
34
evidential base on which the debate can proceed, I shall explain what the achievements have been. It is equally clear, however, that, notwithstanding the achievements, we must recognise that progress in developing adequate services has not been as even or as rapid as we would like; hence the need for further effort.
Over the past 10 years there has been unprecedented expansion. For example, during the financial year 1978–88, the cost, as best as we can estimate it, of core community care services, not including administration or joint finance, was £3,444 million as against £1,169 million in 1979–80. In eight years we have witnessed an increase of 68 per cent. in expenditure of core community care services in real terms.
Back in 1979, about 55 per cent. of local authority gross expenditure was on residential care for elderly people, younger disabled people, mentally handicapped children and adults and mentally ill people, with 45 per cent. on domiciliary services. By 1987–88, local authority gross expenditure was more evenly balanced, with slightly over 50 per cent. on residential care and just under 50 per cent. on community-based services, especially on home helps, day-care centres, meal services and adult training centres.
That is a sign of movement in the direction of domiciliary services that I am sure we would all like to see enhanced as a result of our acceptance of the new framework that Roy Griffiths proposes. Most of us who deal with these matters in practical ways at our advice centres week in and week out are aware that most people would rather stay in their own homes for as long as possible if proper support can be provided, and go into long-term residential care only as a last resort.
We are in the middle of a two-decade span, when the number of the old elderly in our society—that is, those over the age of 85—will double, and it is quite clear that there will be an enhanced, not a diminished, need for long-term residential placements. We must be aware of the impact of demographics on provision, because not only do we aspire to do better for those in need of community care now, but we must recognise that, year on year, as we progress through the 1990s, there will be more people in that category. That poses a challenge not only in making resources available, but in ensuring that they are used to the maximum benefit to provide the best possible care. There is manifestly no room for waste at such a key time.
During this decade there has been a sharp increase in the number of places at day centres—up by 16 per cent.; an increase in home help staff of almost 30 per cent.; an increase in the number of meals served by meals-on-wheels and lunchtime clubs of about 14 per cent.; and a significant growth in a whole range of other personal social service provision. I am confident, looking ahead to the next decade, that there will be a similar increase in that provision; and some even envisage an enhanced increase.
In the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, I should also point out that the same period has witnessed a striking growth in social security payments to people in need. I have already singled out the increase in independent sector residential and nursing home support, which has risen a hundredfold, from £10 million to £1 billion in May this year. I must repeat that, when committing such large sums of public money, it is our duty to ensure that it is spent in the best and most appropriate way to provide care for the clients that best meets their needs. It is in that spirit that we asked Roy Griffiths to undertake his analysis. It is in that spirit that. I believe he delivered one of the most cogent and

35
worthwhile reports in recent times on this or any related topic. It is in that positive spirit that we have accepted his analysis and are inviting the House to debate and discuss it.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is making an interesting speech. He mentioned the increase in home help staff and in the number of meals served by meals-on-wheels, but he did not fully acknowledge that those are provided by the social service departments of local authorities. Many local authorities, especially Newham, then find themselves penalised for overspending. Is the Minister prepared to reconsider social service departments' budgets and the provisions for those budgets in central Government funding, so that there may be a continued growth rather than the restrictions now being faced by certain authorities?
Mr. Mellor: I am anxious to make as much common ground with the hon. Gentleman as possible, and I welcome his remarks. We should be failing in our duty if we turned this debate into a partisan matter. I know that he is not anxious to do so, and neither am I—nor, I hope, will any other hon. Gentleman. It is in recognition of the contribution that local authorities have made and can make that, after the most careful consideration, we have decided to follow the analysis of Roy Griffiths and give local authorities the leading role in arranging the provision of good quality community care. We recognise that a great deal has been achieved in that sector, although we are also aware that there have been some conspicuous failures.
That new role will obviously require an increase in resources. The year-on-year discussions about local authority expenditure have led to an increase of 39 per cent. in real terms in expenditure on personal social services during this decade. There is also the question of the transfer of resources from the Department of Social Security to local authorities to boost their domiciliary care arrangements.
There will obviously be room for debate—the hon. Gentleman has his view and I have mine—about whether a local authority seeking to make good quality social service provision would fall foul of the Government's arrangements. I come from a borough that has an excellent social services department and has never been threatened with rate capping or any of the other problems. I suspect that that is an issue on which we shall not agree, but one thing on which we are agreed is that it is at the heart of the achievement of good quality community care that local authorities should make good provision. That is the inescapable conclusion to which we have come, and it is in that spirit that we are moving ahead with our proposals.
Mr. John Bowis: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, where appropriate, we must also transfer best practice from the health authority to the local authority? For example, in domiciliary care there are cases where home helps and social workers are available only during the week, and district nurses and so on take over at the weekend. I hope that my hon. Friend will monitor the changeover carefully to ensure that full care is given to such people throughout the week.
Mr. Mellor: Given that there is a continuing role for the NHS community services, it is of the essence that there
36
should be a better and much more effective liaison or interface—I try to avoid that dreadful word, but it is probably the best in the circumstances—between local authority social services departments and the NHS. There will plainly be people who require medical and social care and it is necessary for the two services to interlock. If we are honest, most of us will say that the provision of home help services in our localities is not necessarily the greatest ornament in the local authority's shop window. It is a service which needs to be developed. Even in the best local authorities it leaves something to be desired. It is one of those services that we wish to see developed in our aspiration for better and more comprehensive domiciliary care for those in need.
Mr. Michael Lord: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Mellor: With respect to my hon. Friend, I must push on; otherwise, there is a danger that I shall detain the House for longer than I would wish.
Mr. Lord: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Mellor: I hope that my hon. Friend will not criticise me if I overrun.
Mr. Lord: No, I shall not. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way on the point of Government funding to local authorities. Those responsible for the matter in Suffolk are anxious that the correct amount of money should go to pay for the changes for which it is designed. I believe that it is called ring fencing. My county is anxious that that money should not be part of some general grant that is then used for all sorts of different purposes. Will my hon. Friend assure the House today that such money will be specifically earmarked?
Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is vindicated in his decision to press me to give way. He has put his finger on one of the key issues, which we are still in the process of discussing. That is as it should be, when such new arrangements do not come into force until April 1991 and when tomorrow I shall be meeting the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and we are consulting widely outside as well as discussing the arrangements within Government.
The first point that needs to be made is that we did not accept Roy Griffiths's advice on the financing arrangements, largely because, having just changed the financing arrangements between central Government and local government, it did not seem opportune to change them yet again for social services spending. It is right that hon. Members on both sides of the House should speak up for local authorities and, since one of the principal burdens of complaint in the past decade has been an excessive determination of such issues by Whitehall, I should have thought that many would welcome the fact that we are accepting that local authorities should have sufficient discretion over the allocation of resources between the different services that they have to provide without too many of those decisions being pre-empted by Whitehall.
That is the argument in so far as it relates to the totality of Government support for local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) may have been referring to the funding that is transferred from the Department of Social Security to local authorities.

37
There is an argument that, whatever the arrangements that relate to the general transfer of funds from national to local Government—that specifically Griffiths-related transfer from the DSS to local authorities—they should be ring-fenced. The Government have reached no conclusion on that argument. It is my genuine intention and that of my colleagues ranged here in extraordinary numbers to listen with care to what the House has to say. It is well worth advancing a case for ring-fencing that part of the transfer. However, it will be wrong for me to seek now to predict how that argument will shape up.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Mellor: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I really must get on. I am between the devil and the deep blue sea. No doubt the flashing lights will exterminate me at the end of my speech if I go on for too long.[Interruption.] I am sure that that is an outcome devoutly to be wished by Opposition Members.
I hope that we can take the opportunity of exploring together these important avenues, some of which have already been raised in previous discussions. I hope that, as well as dealing with the broad thrust of the proposals, those who have expertise in dealing with some of the especially vulnerable groups will not hesitate to bring that to bear. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has taken a particular interest in the development of our policies on mental health. He will want to say a good deal about that when he winds up the debate. I shall not say too much about that now so as not to duplicate what he will be saying.
The overriding aim of our proposals is to make sense of the existing over-complicated and multi-faceted system for providing health and social care in the community. In particular, we want to promote independence and choice for the individual who needs community care. In the end, those people are the most important and their needs must lie at the heart of our proposals.
We are looking for a new partnership which, if it is to be effective, must be not only between central and local government but with the private sector, the voluntary sector and the National Health Service. If it is established in a spirit of constructive common sense and a businesslike responsibility, it will enable better and more appropriate care to be delivered to more people.
That brings me to the central pillar of our proposals. As I have already said, local authorities will be responsible for co-ordinating the appropriate care packages for those who need them. Our acceptance of Roy Griffiths's analysis is full-hearted on that point. We spent a long time thoroughly considering all the options and decided that this was the most practical way forward.
We want it to work out, and that is why the White Paper will have running through it a conscious awareness, 21 years after Lord Seebohm's famous report, that the Seebohm concept of the social services department remains highly relevant to our needs today. Lord Seebohm described an integrated social services department as
"enabling the greatest possible number of individuals to act reciprocally, giving and receiving services for the well-being of the whole community".
We believe that the key components of community care must be services which respond flexibly and sensitively to individual needs, particularly those of the most highly dependent people, and which allow for real consumer
38
choice. The Government have set the framework for those services with those objectives in mind. There are three objectives and I shall set them out.
Our first and foremost aim is to ensure that, wherever possible, domiciliary, day care and respite services are used to enable people to continue to live in their own homes for as long as possible. Existing funding structures have worked against that in the past; but the unified social care budget that we propose, to be managed by local authorities, will provide a new incentive to give priority to those services for people at home, and to direct them towards those in greatest need of support. As I have said, many people will need long-stay accommodation, and we want them to have it. I am convinced that better domiciliary care will meet a real demand.
Secondly, we want to ensure that service providers make support for carers a high priority. We all recognise that carers make an enormous contribution, but we do not always do enough—indeed, sometimes we do not do anything—to help them. Pious acknowledgement of the role of carers is not enough; we must develop practical ways of helping them, and I believe that the provision of respite care schemes must be a priority. Policy for carers is one of the most crucial aspects that we want to develop, and I look forward to receiving further advice from the House this afternoon.
Thirdly, we want to ensure that service delivery is based on a proper assessment of need. Social services departments will be familiar with the process, but the new financial arrangements will require the task to be undertaken in a different context. That will involve taking account of all the individuals' circumstances, including their health, and the several different ways of meeting needs within the broad objectives of community care policy.
The basic aim is an individual assessment of need designed to offer the best possible outcome within the resources available. Clearly, the amount of time and effort required to make the assessment will vary considerably from case to case, as will the need to consult other agencies; but we want to ensure that when consultation is needed it takes place, particularly when residential care is being considered. An input will plainly be necessary from the National Health Service as well as from local health authorities.
Although in some instances collective consideration will be necessary, it is vital for us to recognise that in many cases not collective but individual responsibility will be essential. We neither need nor can afford a case conference on every decision. We shall want to develop with the social services departments good practice in case management, with the aim of ensuring that named individuals are responsible for individual cases. That is the basis of the exercise of responsibility within a properly disciplined framework in social services departments. I hope that those will be seen as common-sense concepts with which we can all agree.
Another key part of our proposals is the continued development of the independent sector, supplementing rather than replacing—I stress that—local and health authorities' provision, and therefore increasing the available range of options and widening consumer choice.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mellor: I will give way in a moment.
A steadily increasing number of authorities are already moving to become "enablers", and we wish that trend to continue. At a recent social services conference in Coventry, I was encouraged to note the number of authorities across the political spectrum that recognised that that was a proper role for them to be asked to fulfil. It makes a great deal of sense to look at what the independent sector can offer, in terms of both quality and cost-effectiveness.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that his Government's policy of deliberately moving people out into the private sector, and then limiting the amount that they could receive in social security, is causing a real problem for many of my constituents? Having found themselves in private homes, they can no longer afford to stay there, and will soon be put in the intolerable position of having virtually nowhere to go. How does the Minister assess that idealised picture of a mix of private and public health care—which is not being provided under his command?
Mr. Mellor: I think that the hon. Lady is being less than fair. I have already pointed out that there has been a hundredfold increase in the provision of resources to enable people to enter long-term residential care. The number who have availed themselves of that opportunity has been far greater proportionately than the increase in the number of elderly people over the past decade.
I have acknowledged—and I am happy to repeat—that it is of the essence to look at the two variables. The first is what is right and proper to be charged by way of fees in these circumstances. One of the advantages of a mixed market is that there is competitive pressure to offer value for money. The second is the need to look at the amount of resources devoted to each individual.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Security, who is present today, has said, notwithstanding the many other matters on his plate, that he appreciates that it is of the essence to keep under review the adequacy of these provisions. But I am a long way from being persuaded that the Dickensian picture that the hon. Lady paints is anything like an adequate or fair description of what is happening now.
Ms. Joan Walley rose——
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Frank Field rose——
Mr. Mellor: I have an imploring trio, but I think the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is the most irresistible
Mr. Field: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made is vital. Many of our constituents, after a lifetime of contributing to the NHS, expected to be given a free service when they needed it. They now find, when they are put in what the Minister described as residential care, that they are in difficulty. In the first instance they may have found the situation satisfactory because the fees were covered in full. Increasingly, however, many of them are finding that the DHSS is not meeting nursing home fees in full. Many families are, fortunately, able to make additional
40
contributions to ensure that the fees are paid, but gradually an increasing number are finding that they are unable to do so.
The result is that, whereas many of our older constituents expected to be cared for free in hospitals, they are finding now that they are cared for initially free in residential care but are then faced with bills of £10, £20, £30 and even £40 a week. What does the Minister say to those constituents and families who cannot make up the difference by topping up the fees, who previously enjoyed a free service but who are now expected to make contributions?
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman, whose authority and good will on these issues I recognise, paints a less than fair picture. I cannot believe that he wanted to make one point in the way in which I heard it—the idea that those in residential care should have been better placed in hospital.
Mr. Field indicated dissent.
Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was not implying that. It is of the essence of sensible provision under whatever Government may be in power that we do not use hospitals as places for the long-term care of those who do not require medical as against social care.
Mr. Field: There was no price tag.
Mr. Mellor: Some saw that as a clear advantage. In other situations, it meant that people who could reasonably have made some contribution towards their residential care did not do so. We must accept that we shall increasingly be living in a society in which, while it is true that many will require full protection—and they are getting it, because I have it on the authority of the Minister of State that the majority of people are receiving full cover in this connection—some will not be receiving full cover because they and their families can make up the difference without it being unreasonable for them to do so.
I know that the hon. Member for Birkenhead wants to be fair, and he will appreciate that while in any of these policy areas one can never have all gain and that there will always be problems, my right hon. Friend has acknowledged the need to keep these issues under review. It has been a major benefit this decade that there has become available good quality residential care for the elderly provided by the private sector largely financed by the public sector. No amount of quibbling at the margin can deny that that has been a major achievement of the Government.
Ms. Walley: In relation to fairness and placing people in the independent sector, perhaps the Minister will address a problem that was represented to me at my surgery on Friday. An elderly pensioner couple with a sister in a private residential home told me that she was in receipt of £10 a week less than was needed for her stay there. The elderly pensioner couple are having to find that £10 every week out of their pension of £74 to make up the shortfall between what is available from public funds to keep their sister in that home and what is being charged by the independent sector.
I assure the Minister that that is not an isolated case. People throughout the country are facing similar situations. We cannot rely on the independent sector when

41
there are not sufficient funds available to cover that sector's charges. What answer does the Minister have for our constituents who are facing such problems?
Mr. Mellor: I appreciate the concern felt by the hon. Lady. I have already said that it is of the essence to assess the reasonableness of the fees charged and the reasonableness, in individual circumstances, of the amount of public assistance given. The hon. Lady will not expect me to give a substantive answer because, although I obviously know something about these matters, they are not my primary departmental responsibility and, secondly, it is difficult for me to comment on an individual case. I suggest that she writes about the facts of the case to my right hon. Friend the Minister so that the matter can be looked at.
Plainly, there are some problem cases that we must examine. I have already acknowledged that, and I do not mind doing so, but if we are to have a balanced and sensible debate, it would be helpful if all Opposition Members acknowledged that the reason that we are in this position is an unprecedented expansion in the availability of an area of care that was never available before the Government came into office.
In this mixed economy of care, it is clear that ensuring quality will be vital. Quality is at the heart of our concern. No agency has a monopoly of virtue on quality, but we will be looking to local authorities to ensure that the care provided is not simply the cheapest, the most convenient to supply or just a ratification of the way things have always been done, but the package that best meets the needs of the individual client.
To define good quality is not easy, but I hope that local authorities will begin by listening to their clients. Recently I was particularly glad to read an article in The Guardian by Tessa Jowell—a name rightly respected in this area—who made the point most graphically. She concluded a piece about local authority provision, which had food for thought for all of us and not just local authorities, by saying:
"Local authority provision is a badly directed mish-mash whose ineffectiveness frustrates or dispirits the provider and often demeans the beneficiary. The solution in local authorities is to listen to the customer."
I hope that that kind of straight talking will persuade local authorities to see the need for change and improvement not as a threat, or something to bridle at defensively, but as a shared endeavour which central and local government should work on together.
Mr. Tom Clarke: It is appropriate for the Minister to quote Tessa Jowell as she was a well-known supporter of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The Minister will note that I waited 37 minutes into his speech in order to hear what the Government plan to say to local authorities—and he has an opportunity to do just that, when he meets the Association of Metropolitan Authorities tomorrow. Where do the Government stand on this Act, or are we to assume that the off-the-cuff comment of the Secretary of State on 12 July now represents the Government's definitive position?
Mr. Mellor: I was asked this question at Coventry and I understand why, but all I can give is the same answer. I have no further announcements to make of further
42
progress in implementing other parts of that Act, but I have plenty of other plans and schemes and everything must fit in to a sensible order of priorities.
Service specifications and monitoring have a vital role in local authorities' own services. Contrary to what some have said, we are not stopping local authorities providing their own old people's homes and so on. What is clear, however, is that local authorities will need to prove better than they have ever been able to do that they are properly monitoring the standards within their own homes as well as having an arm's-length agency capable of dealing fairly with residential homes that lie within their areas. In the years to come, their ability to be fair will be one of the key tests of whether we were right to charge local authorities with those responsibilities under Griffiths.
I should like to commend those local authorities that are already developing quality assurance work within their social services departments. It is not enough that social services departments should believe in what they are doing: they should be capable of demonstrating that what they are doing is of good quality. That is essential.
Turning briefly to planning and monitoring, while quality will be an essential element in the new planning and monitoring system, there are other issues that we need to grasp. Accountability will be a central plank of an effective, high-quality public service, and we shall be looking to satisfy ourselves that authorities have plans which are in line with national policy objectives. We shall be taking new powers to call for reports from authorities where we have reason to think they may be needed. We shall want the social services inspectorate—which is well respected by local authorities of all political colours—to have access to plans and to offer advice on them. We have no desire to establish an over-bureaucratic or heavy-handed system, but it is important that future community care arrangements are subject to that additional form of public accountability.
Let me say a word or two about resources. I have already made it clear, and I am happy to do so again, that the Government have an important role in ensuring that local authorities have the financial resources they need to tackle these new tasks of assessing need, arranging care packages and buying residential and nursing home places. Our proposals are aimed at making sure the best possible use is made of all available resources, whatever their source. They represent a challenge to local authorities in terms of developing their role as enablers encouraging quality control, giving value for money, improving community involvement and enhancing consumer choice.
We have not under-estimated these demands, and recognise that local authorities will need the means to meet their new responsibilities. That is why we shall be transferring to them the money that the Government would otherwise have provided to finance care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes. Decisions on the amounts to be transferred, which will allow for projected growth in the numbers of people needing support, will be taken in next year's public expenditure survey. I am well aware of the importance of those discussions proceeding well. That is why we are having intensive discussions with local authority associations and others in trying to ensure that we reach some balanced judgment as to what that figure should be.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can the Minister explain what is happening in Brighton, as in many ways that is at the beginning of the route we are on? We understand that in Brighton a health authority has in effect handed over to a housing association responsibility for the care of 16 to 20 people with learning difficulties. The housing association has told the people who currently look after those people that they cannot have jobs if they seek to remain in the same union. Clearly, the housing association has done that because it considers that there are economies to be made and money to be saved if the people working for the housing association who take over that care are not members of the trade union they belong to in the Health Service. Is that the community care arrangement one wants for people with learning difficulties, whereby one hires people without skills, who have not been involved in that care in the Health Service from outside in the market, simply to save on wages and conditions? Is that what we are to expect?
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has not made the best possible use of the time he took for his intervention. Obviously, he cannot expect me to comment on a case about which I know nothing. My principal curiosity is why the hon. Gentleman who represents Workington should be so fascinated by what happens in Brighton, which, so far as I am aware, is extremely capably represented by two of my hon. Friends who probably get on perfectly well without him on that aspect.
Let me say a word or two about training. We recognise that there is a significant training agenda here for local authorities, who must now be starting to consider how to meet the training needs of their staff and to plan new training programmes. At last month's social services conference in Coventry, I was glad to announce the continuation in 1990–91, at present levels, of the training support of an additional central grant of £2 million next year to support post-qualifying training in management which will be at the heart of all this. Authorities should be able to take advantage of these in preparing their training plans for the new community care arrangements.
Obviously, however, the partnership goes wider than between Government and local authorities during the implementation period. It stretches out to embrace all those involved in community care—health and social services, independent and statutory sectors, providers and consumers, advisers and assessors, care managers and carers—and it will persist as working together in a real sense after the new mechanisms are in place. Our ability to devise systems whereby those various parts of the system can work together will be a test of whether we have succeeded.
I am to be involved in this area of activity at a time when there is a real chance of making a decisive move forward towards better community care. There is, I realise, a wealth of difference between stating policy and putting it into practice. Nevertheless, I believe firmly that, given strong management and a businesslike approach, there is much that can be achieved. We can get better at meeting the needs of the public to whom we are all of us accountable. The focus should be on the needs of the individual, whether a child with a mental handicap, and elderly person who, despite disabilities, wants to remain at home, or a person with mental illness who needs help facing the problems of living with dignity with his disease.
44
I conclude with another passage from Tessa Jowell's article:
"It takes time, patience and a commitment to change, rather than a lot of money, to translate the vast range of individual experiences into service changes that are recognisable to the people who use them."
I add to that that of course money will be needed. I gladly concede that, but people need also to find the time, the patience, the commitment to change and the effective organisation and management of these services. If that is absent, no amount of money will give us the community care that we all want to see.
Those people who are cared for and those who do the caring deserve a better deal from community care. That is the spirit in which we have announced our proposals. I hold firm to my belief that central Government, local authorities and all the other major players in the community care world will be better able under these arrangements to forge the new partnership needed to give that better deal to the increasing number of people who need it.
4.47 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: This is our third debate on community care in the past six months. It is the first such debate in Government time, and it was widely expected on both sides of the Chamber when the debate was announced in July that this would be the occasion when the House would debate the White Paper we were promised on 12 July in the Secretary of State's holding statement.
In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) the Secretary of State said, on the timing of the White Paper:
"It will probably be in the recess."—[Official Report, 12 July 1989, vol. 156, c. 998.]
I believed him. I certainly believed him when I discovered that we would be debating this matter on the first day back after the recess because I could not believe that anyone would be so foolish as to expose himself to a debate on this issue unless he was confident that the White Paper would be published in advance. I now know not to believe him next time.
Like the rest of the House, I tuned in to the Secretary of State's address to the Conservative party conference. I was flattered to note that the Secretary of State found time to make two references to me, but they were two more than the references he made to the Government's plans on community care which have fallen back down to the depths of his mind. It is perplexing that the delay is not just a matter of three months since the holding statement in July. It is now a delay of 19 months since the Griffiths report was published. The Government have taken close on two years to get themselves together to publish their response to a report which was written in just over one year. When one considers that laid-back timetable——
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): That is what the hon. Gentleman was going on about last time.
Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State says that this is what I went on about last time, but if the case against the Government's delay was strong in June, how much stronger it is when we meet again in October.
It is perfectly clear what is getting priority under the Secretary of State at Richmond house—his plans to

45
convert the NHS to market medicine. That means focusing on conditions that can be cured quickly and therefore can be priced and delivered on price. That means marginalis-ing infirmities, disabilities that cannot be cured, that require long-term, low-technology care and nursing, that are expensive without ending, and cannot be made a commercial proposition.
One consequence of this further, unanticipated, delay —about which I think we are entitled to press Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State, since he is with us today —is the problem of the vanishing interval available for consultation on the White Paper when it is published. I grant that this is not a ministerial team noted for lending a patient ear to consultation. They have not paid a blind bit of notice of the storm that the last White Paper produced, but there it is—for form's sake, presumably they intend to have some sort of consultation when they produce the White Paper.
We understand that, if there is to be legislation arising from the White Paper. it will be included in the Government's Bill on the National Health Service proposals which, although unloved, unpopular and consistently rejected by four to one by public opinion, they intend to whip through the House.
I keep reading in the press that that Bill will be in Committee before Christmas. That is using the universal law of the guilty—if it is to be done, it is best that it is done quickly. Where does that leave the proposals for community care?
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman's debating points seem always to move further and further away from any anchorage in reality. He has chosen to make complaints about consultation and delay. Would he care to tell us which group, whose interests he claims to represent today, has briefed him to say that there has been inadequate consultation? He knows that, as I have already said, there has been the closest consultation with all local authority associations and the Association of Directors of Social Services. If it is taking a week or two longer to complete the White Paper, it is because of the thorough examination that is now going on.
Is the hon. Gentleman just making debating points or will he settle down and debate the topic seriously?
Mr. Cook: Since the hon. and learned Gentleman asks me, I am happy to say what groups I consulted when preparing this speech. They are the Spastics Society, MIND, Mencap, Age Concern and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, all of whom remain quite mystified as to the financial arrangements that will flow from the holding statement last July and are anxious to obtain the White Paper.
Mr. Mellor rose——
Mr. Cook: I shall give way again, but I want to ask one question. One of those organisations told me that it has heard a rumour that, because of the narrow interval that will now exist between publication of the White Paper in late November and publication of the National Health Service Bill in early December, the Minister intends to put necessary clauses arising from the White Paper on community care before the Committee that considers that Bill. That would be only too typical of the contempt with which the Government have treated parliamentary procedure.
46
Since the hon. and learned Gentleman is so anxious to intervene, I shall ask a specific question. Will he give us assurances that the House will have those clauses on Second Reading of the Bill so that it may be afforded the courtesy of debating them on Second Reading?
Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] The hon. Gentleman wants to wriggle off a hook of his own making by posing another question. He mentioned four organisations, one of which I am meeting tomorrow. He made the accusation about lack of consultation. Will he tell us which of the four organisations complained to him about lack of consultation by the Government during the preparation of the White Paper on community care?
The hon. Gentleman can wriggle and jiggle. That was the point he was making and it is a bad point, as he well knows.
Mr. Cook: I can answer that point fairly and squarely. All of them said they did not have the July statement and that they needed clarification.
The Minister cannot escape the fact that the Government produced a statement in July and that all the organisations in this field remain ignorant of its meaning.
The Minister said that I produced another question. I have asked only one question of the Minister so far, and it is one that he has singularly failed to address.
I am grateful for the Minister's intervention—interventions at the Dispatch Box usually are enlightening. He has not ruled out the possibility of these clauses being produced in Committee. That is typical of how the Government proceed once a Bill is before the House. No doubt they will already have guillotined it. Nothing illustrates more clearly the low priority that the Government attach to community care for the disabled, the elderly and the mentally handicapped than their reducing clauses relating to them to a Committee point.
I shall now consider what we know about the White Paper, which comes from an essay, "Plan for a White Paper", published by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), which is more enlightening about the likely contents of the White Paper than was the Minister's speech.
As the Minister knows, concern about the draft synopsis for his White Paper focused on the passage about non-residential services. In that passage, the draft says:
"Local Authorities: To encourage the further development of mixed economy of care, to encourage diversification of private providers' entry into domiciliary care market."
I have asked only one question so far and I think I am entitled to a second. What does that mean? I am sure that it does not mean a greater partnership with voluntary agencies because there is already a flourishing partnership between local authorities and voluntary agencies. Most lunch clubs are funded by local authorities but administered by voluntary groups. The only thing that holds up expansion plans is lack of local authority resources. Nor can it mean that commercial companies will be allowed to enter the market to sell services to the consumer, because commercial companies can do that already and they have not shown the slightest interest in entering what is an unprofitable market. What I presume it means is that local authorities will be forced to hand over chunks of their provision to the commercial sector. That brings me to my second question. Does this bode putting home helps out to competitive tender at some future date?
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I cannot believe that it has escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that, during the past decade, and in the past 40 years, there has been an enormous growth in the number of people who have disposable incomes and who have had them for most of their working lives. They are accustomed to making choices in the market place about the kind of care that they want. It would be entirely in keeping with that choice that there should be a considerable growth of a mixed economy in the provision of care, as there already has been in the provision of residential care.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman says that many people with an income are obliged to buy in the private sector what they cannot obtain from the public sector. Since the hon. Gentleman's constituency is in Kent I shall describe a situation that faces some of his constituents. His local authority is in the bottom 20 for provision of home helps to people over 75, and it provides the lowest number of meals per person to those over 75.
Mr. Rowe rose——
Mr. Cook: No, I shall not give way again.
It is hardly surprising in those circumstances, when there is dire, desperate and inadequate public sector provision, that so many constituents are forced to turn to the private sector.
That brings me to the Minister's observations about the increase in the provision of home helps and of domiciliary services. There has undoubtedly been an increase. There are also dramatic variations in provision across the country that ought to be of interest to the Minister. The top 20 social services authorities provide more than 40 hours of home help service per person over 75. Virtually all of them are Labour authorities.
I agree that none of those authorities would be complacent about provision. Every one would accept that there is a case for further provision and that they are not meeting needs in their area, but at least they are in the top 20. They all provide more than double the number of hours of home help service that are provided by authorities in the bottom 20, all of whom provide less than 20 hours per person to those over 75. I am proud to say that none of those local authorities in the bottom 20 are in majority Labour control.
The issue is not the Minister's barren ideological obsession with whether services are contracted out or are with a private provider but whether the services are being provided at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned the inadequacy of home help provision in Newham, where the number of hours of home help provided per person over 75 is 38. The neighbouring borough to Newham is Conservative-controlled Redbridge, where the average number of hours of home help per person over 75 is 16—less than half that of the neighbouring borough.
Are there so few old people in Barnet that it can get by by providing one fifth the number of hours of home help provided in Greenwich? Are old people in East Sussex so wealthy that East Sussex can get by with a quarter of the services provided in Cleveland? There is the same variation in the provision of meals for people over 75 in Kent. Can Kent get by with one tenth of the provision of meals per person over 75 as is provided in Lewisham, which is only half an hour's drive away? The variations that those figures reveal have nothing to do with variations in need,
48
but everything to do with the political priorities of the people in charge. Throughout the country, Labour authorities are committed to meeting those needs, but the services that they provide may be put at risk by the political dogma foreshadowed in the White Paper.
The Government's worrying double standards on residential homes were revealed in the Secretary of State's statement in July and confirmed by the Minister's speech. The Secretary of State takes pride in saying that he has delivered on 80 per cent. of Griffiths's recommendations. Typically, the two major departures from Griffiths relate to money. The first is arrangements for people in residential care. The Government's proposals are not the same as Griffiths's, despite the Minister's congratulations on a cogent and worthwhile report.
Griffiths recommended that there should be a level playing field between the public and private sectors, which is what one would expect from an author committed to a free market in which people can exercise choice. Instead, Ministers are offering a rigged market in which one choice is off limits. One will receive social security support only if one chooses private provision. One will be lucky to receive local authority provision because, inevitably, Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities will be obliged to steer people towards the sector that enables them to maximise revenue and protect their fixed budgets. On this playing field, the public sector will be playing up hill.
I note in the synopsis of the White Paper a delphic line that reads:
"Explanation of the rationale for this."
I look forward to reading that. I do not know how Ministers propose to wrap it up, which may be a cause of the delay. We are already aware of one reason for the delay —to force local authorities out of direct provision. If anyone doubts that, he should consider what is happening in local authorities where the Conservatives already have their hands on that direct provision. In Bradford, they are selling old folks' homes, not necessarily to be used as such once they are sold. Since the publication of the Secretary of State's statement in July, the authority in Wirral has divested itself of all old folks' homes.
In those circumstances, what happens to the rights of the users of those homes? What about the choice of residents who live in them? What guarantee do they have that they will be allowed to continue to exercise their choice to stay in a local authority home?
The truth is that there is a mixed market in residential care, and that no one in the public sector is arguing against it. Indeed, precious few people in the private sector are arguing against it. The only voice urging retreat by public sector provision is that of Ministers. That dogma matches the prejudice with which Ministers are currently booting local authority representatives off the health authorities at the very time when community care requires greater co-operation between the two.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman said that only Ministers were calling for more provision by the private sector.
Mr. Cook: I did not say that.
Mr. Thurnham: That certainly was the drift of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I should like to draw his attention to remarks that the Royal College of Nursing made in its report. It said:

49
"Inspectors are setting standards for the private sector which are not adhered to in the public sector, especially in residential care homes."
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take that on board.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman should be on this side of the Chamber. The Government propose to leave registration inspection in the hands of local authorities. The Labour party proposes that registration inspection should be carried out by a national agency and not left with local authorities, but that is a debate that the hon. Gentleman can have with his hon. Friends and not Labour Members.
Local authorities are being invited to make long-term dispositions about residential care homes on the basis of the rigged market that will be introduced in 1991. The next Government will remove the absurd discrimination against the public sector. We shall restore to local authorities the right to compete fairly and the ability to be direct providers of residential care.
That brings me to the Secretary of State's second major departure from Griffiths. Griffiths recommended a specific community care grant to meet half the total expenditure of local authorities on community care. No specific grant was included in the Secretary of State's statement to the House. I was astonished when the Minister said that the Government had not yet made up their mind about that. It is perfectly clear from the Secretary of State's statement on 12 July that he had made up his mind. I asked a specific question about this issue, to which the Secretary of State replied:
"As to money and resources, we are following Sir Roy Griffiths's recommendation to transfer resources and the care element of social security to local authority budgets … We have not followed Sir Roy's recommendation for a specific grant."—[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 982.]
If the Minister is saying that the Secretary of State is having second thoughts, that is most welcome, but I should like to tempt the Secretary of State in his second thoughts to go beyond the specific minor element to which he referred—the transfer of the present social security provision to those in residential care. If that is the only commitment to money being diverted to local authorities and a specific grant, I warn hon. Members that we are not talking about large sums. We are talking not about the £1 billion that is currently given to those in residential care who are on social security, but about only the care element of funds that the Department of Social Security would otherwise pay out on persons admitted for the first time to residential care after April 1991.
The increase last year in DSS expenditure on residential care was less than £200 million. The Minister has not told us how much of that is the care element, but if we assume that it is about one third, we are talking about a transfer from DSS funds to local authorities of less than £100 million—perhaps £750,000 for every social services authority in England and Wales. We are not talking about sufficient grants to meet 50 per cent. of their community care expenditure. Local authorities are worried that they will not be receiving enough even to carry out the function of substituting for the DSS and maintaining people in residential care.
It is not enough for the Minister to dismiss the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) as Dickensian. The point that she made about the under-funding of those who are currently on social security in residential care is well
50
documented. A study carried out in Oxford identified almost one third of those residents having a shortfall in excess of £30 a week. A firm of accountants, on behalf of the British Medical Association, is studying that picture.
There is no mystery about it—the gap dates from 1985, when the Department of Health and Social Security changed the rules, no longer met the full fee of the homes and residential care and annually uprated only a flat charge, which in every year since 1985 has gone up by less than the rate of inflation. Tens of thousands of elderly people are driven frantic with worry because of a shortfall between what they receive in benefit and what is required to keep the roof over their heads. The nightmare for local authorities is that, if and when they get this new money transferred from the DSS, it will entirely vanish on topping up the shortfall that already occurs on existing provision, never mind fresh provision.
That brings me to the key question. If the Under-Secretary of State wishes to choose a question to which to reply from the multiple choice questions, this is the one that I would most prefer him to tackle. A new duty has been placed on local authorities to sponsor elderly and disabled persons who are admitted to residential care. Along with that, there is the duty to assess whether they are appropriately admitted to residential care. In this new system, if the local authority carries out the assessment and decides that residential care is appropriate, will it then be obliged to find a place and will it be guaranteed the resources to meet the cost of that place, or will applicants be told, "Yes, you are entitled to residential care and you pass the assessment for residential care but, sorry, we have hit our cash limits and we cannot afford to place you in residential care"?
The worrying feature is that we are moving from a system in which cash from the DSS is awarded to the individual on individual entitlement to a system that will be based on a fixed budget and will therefore be cash-limited. It is difficult not to conclude that the elaborate rhetoric of a new direction in community care conceals the fact that the Treasury has now got what it has long been looking for—a device to cap the bounding social security expenditure on residential care. The device will consist of sitting back and letting local authorities take the strain or, as Chris Heginbotham of the King's Fund expressed it rather bluntly, but tellingly, there is a real danger that local authorities will be "politically stuffed".
That brings me to the critical question of why there is no specific grant for the transfer of resources. As we understand it, the transfer of resources will be buried in the revenue support grant, where they will be so small that even the Secretary of State will require his best pair of ornithologist's binoculars to spot it. Certainly no one else will be capable of seeing what is going on, and that, of course, is what local authorities suspect is the intention behind not ring-fencing this transfer of resources.
The Minister asked about the voluntary organisations that I consulted. Every one of them pleaded for the transfer of resources to be ring-fenced so that it could be separately identified. The Minister keeps referring to the importance of the private sector. The joint care committee, which represents the commercial sector, is terrified about what will happen if the transfer is not ring-fenced, because it is worried that local authorities will not have the resources to meet the claims of the claimants currently in their homes.

51
I raised the matter with the Secretary of State in July. In responding to my intervention, he said that the separate specific grant proposed by Griffiths was intended as a control menchanism—the implication was that local authorities should be pleased that he was not imposing this control mechanism on them. Possibly the most remarkable voice in support of a specific separate grant is that of local authorities. They are willing to accept the deal of a specific grant for specific services. That is a control mechanism that they are confident they can meet. They want it also because it will be a control mechanism on the Secretary of State as well. A specific grant would make it clear to everyone how much he was putting into community care and who was responsible if it was not enough. the person dodging the control mechanism is the Secretary of State; it is not the local authorities.
The Minister's comment on the carers of those in need of care was welcome and generous. However, the House should recognise that the bulk of care in the community is met by informal carers, by which—let us be blunt about it —we mean the nearest female relative, time after time. It is impossible not to salute the dedication and sacrifice of those carers. The Minister of State went to the AMA conference the day after I did, and no doubt found as I did that every delegate to that conference had been deeply moved at the plenary session when a number of carers had been specifically selected by Tessa Jowell to talk about their experiences and needs. They included one woman for whom that was the first hour in two years in which she had been out of the house and away from the person for whom she was caring.
The Minister is right to say that we cannot be pious in deriving a warm glow of satisfaction from contemplating the devotion of those carers, but the response of the House in contemplating that dedication and devotion should be shame—shame that we provide so little help to them, that we do not provide any training for them and that we provide little respite care and minimal relief for them.
There are undoubtedly a number of pertinent questions that can be asked about the Government's intentions. One set relates to how the Government intend meeting the need of those carers for an income of their own. I am glad that the Minister for Social Security is with us, because the way in which this Parliament has treated the benefit rights of carers is a disgrace. If the carer lives with somebody who claims social security, it is almost certain that, by definition, that person was one of those getting higher social security levels, based on allowances and extra payments for heating, diet and other needs, all of which were abolished in April 1988. Therefore it is likely that such a carer now finds himself or herself stuck in a household on transitional protection, with a frozen income for the past three years. If the carer was on social security in April 1988, she would have found herself in April 1988 in the only group on long-term supplementary benefit which got no premium on transfer to transitional protection, and therefore she would have lost the equivalent of £5 a week.
I was deeply moved a couple of months ago when I read an article by a woman who gave up work four years ago to nurse her terminally ill sister. She explained how she got out of the house only twice a week. At the end of those four years of constant nursing and after her sister died, she
52
applied for unemployment benefit because her invalid care allowance had expired. When she applied for benefit, she was told that she did not qualify because, as a result of the Social Security Act 1988, credits for ICA no longer counted towards unemployment benefit.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: A kick in the teeth.
Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend says, it was a kick in the teeth. The woman's emotions and reactions to that were greatly exacerbated when the person behind the counter, no doubt well-meaning, but essentially tactless, said that caring for a relative was not a proper job.
Mr. Frank Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position is even worse, because no carers get credits for unemployment benefit? Therefore, when the person for whom they care dies and they claim benefit they are told that they do not qualify for any national insurance benefit. The Government say how important it is to support the carers, but does my hon. Friend agree from experience of his surgeries that about six months after the person for whom they have cared has died, many carers often have a breakdown, such is the pressure on them? If the Government were serious about supporting carers in their move back into work, the very least they could do today would be to announce that all carers would qualify for benefit when they cease to be carers.
Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. All the medical surveys that have been carried out show that not only those who are in need of care are infirm or disabled, but the people who care for them are less healthy than the rest of the population.
I stress that however much we improve the service to carers and whatever solution we find to the serious problem they face in obtaining independent income, it would be an immense mistake for any hon. Member to imagine that we shall be able to palm off the growing number of those in need of care on to a growing number of carers. Most people over the age of 85 have children —if that is the right term—who are now in their early sixties and who are on the verge of needing domiciliary support. There are not enough younger relatives to go round. Already, 29 per cent. of single women between the age of 45 and 64 provide full-time care for disabled relatives. In the real world that percentage cannot be increased. Other Ministers, especially the Secretary of State for Employment, have other plans for these women and want them to step into the breach caused by the declining numbers of school leavers.
The harsh reality is that individual solutions in private families cannot match the growing need for care in the community. It will take collective provision by public agencies for the community. That will not be achieved by a Government who persist in regarding local authorities as whipping boys and every increase in public expenditure as a defeat and who, when faced with a social need, see only a market opportunity. Those are the real reasons why Ministers are having such difficulty writing the White Paper after 18 months and why all the signs are that when the White Paper appears it will not match the challenge that we face. They are part of the reason why the public outside this place are increasingly impatient to be rid of the Government.
5.22 pm
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I followed closely what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was saying and I had some sympathy with his point about carers, because I am most concerned in case there is any belief in Government circles that the voluntary sector can in some way, in totality, take over the responsibilities which have hitherto been the purview of the state.
In 1971 my wife was involved in establishing an emergency social health scheme in the Brixton area of south London. After it had been going a few years and a partnership had been developed with the local authority, it had five full-time paid employees, who were paid for largely by the local authority. There were also about 80 volunteers. Without the five full-time employees, it would have been impossible to keep the 80 volunteers in the field. I would be happy to be reassured, but I am concerned that there is a belief that the 80 could be extended and the five full-time employees could be taken away so that the entire scheme—which is replicated throughout the country—could be run on a completely voluntary basis. Quite frankly, it cannot.
We seek reassurance from the Government that they will look at the importance of funding some paid employees in local schemes to act as false multipliers to make it possible for the considerable amount of voluntary good will which exists to be utilised. They must not regard volunteers as a substitute for paid effort.
I know that many people want to speak in the debate, so I shall be brief; but there are some points that require further elucidation and clarification from the Government. It would be extremely helpful if, when replying to the debate, the Minister could tell us when the Government intend to transfer the management and staff of long-stay mentally handicapped hospitals to social services departments. There is a considerable gap on this subject and we should like to hear about it.
There is also much concern about what the care packages will consist of. There is a problem between what constitutes a care cost and what a housing cost. In my own part of the country, one of the specialities of the North West Surrey health district is respite care breaks. There is a great deal of demand from individuals and carers for such respite care. In order not to disadvantage the individuals, they would need to be able to pay not only for their respite care, which is a care cost, but for the rent on their homes, plus rates, heating and water, which are housing costs. They should also pay something towards the hotel charges incurred by the providers of respite care, which is a housing cost. Therefore, the formula for calculating care costs must include provision for the housing element; otherwise, there would simply not be enough to pay for the service.
Mr. Chris Heginbotham, who has been mentioned in this debate, has spoken in favour of the desirability of setting up various forms of trusts to help to administer housing needs in areas where there is a considerable degree of pressure. In my part of north-west Surrey we must have sufficient capital, revenue reserves and resources provided otherwise we shall be in great difficulty when following through some of the excellent initiatives that we have. There is much that is good in what the Government have been proposing; now we want further clarification on some of the points that I have raised.
5.27 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I shall try to deal in a few moments with a few of the points made by the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), but shall begin by saying that the Minister of State is a pretty dab hand at putting a gloss on the policies he presents—that is, when he gets round to doing so. I was disappointed that he took so long to get round to community care. The Government have had the Griffiths report for a long time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has constantly mentioned.
Today, the Minister of State is making friendly overtures to those people who need community care, but I was not that impressed by the substance of his speech. Community care is one of the greatest social problems of our age, affecting old and disabled people. I would have thought that the Government would have given the subject a much higher priority and dealt with it more quickly.
Despite the vagueness of the new proposals mentioned by the Secretary of State in April and filled out a hit today by the Minister, they show that a new financial burden may be added to those shouldered by people who receive community care. Many people are fearful that, if local authority care is to be privatised, it may mean that the Government will replace free provision with means-tested care. That is a point of great importance to disabled and old people, because the consequences would be devastating.
If that fear were justified, it would mean that thousands of elderly and disabled people would gradually lose their savings, and nothing could be more important to them than that. They might even have to sell off their houses as their resources melted away in payment for essential care services. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give a categorical assurance that the Government will not privatise community care. I would welcome that. If he cannot, I shall take that, too, as a statement of Government policy. If the Government privatise community care and charge for it, that will be scandalous; it will be the equivalent of selling it like cigarettes or detergents.
The Minister of State expressed good will to people who receive community care. I shall tell him where Government policy is wrong. The fundamental shortcom-ing of the Government's new policy is its assumption that the acknowledged inadequacies of community care can be remedied by shuffling responsibilities, not by increasing resources. The truth is that we need new polices and new money, yet we do not seem to be getting them. Indeed, the level of finance may even be reduced. It may leak away because of the Department's refusal to make specific allocations.
On 12 July, the Secretary of State said that he had not gone down the specific grant route but would use the inspectorate route. Today we heard the Minister of State say what the inspectorate would do. He has been led up the garden path if he thinks that it is a substitute for specific grants. He said that the inspectorate would "offer advice". What is the point of that? Intransigent local authorities which are not prepared to allocate funds for community care will not be impressed in the least by advice from any quarter.
We must have specific allocations by the Government for realistic and genuine
community care.

55
One of the problems facing Ministers is that specific grants would enable people to identify the true cause of poor services—the Government's inadequate funding. Without specific grants, blame can be diverted to local authorities, which may well be why the Minister has rejected such grants.
Local authorities are under great pressure to divert funds to badly needed housing or to repairing decaying school buildings. That could be tempting to some impecunious local authorities—and to some mean ones. It would devastate old people if the cash were diverted in that way.
Few things are more insulting to disabled people than being patronised or refused consultation, or denied someone to represent them. I know that these things can be and sometimes are done on an ad hoc basis, but disabled people want such consultations as a statutory right. That is very important. Improved community care for disabled people will develop only from consultation with them and their representatives when that is a statutory right, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say today that the Government will implement sections 1, 2, 3, and 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. If he does not, that will show that, despite having quoted Tessa Jowell's view of caring in the community, the Minister is not prepared to go as far as disabled people want him to.
The mentally handicapped and mentally ill are of special concern because of the appalling way in which many of them have been shunted into an unprepared and often indifferent community. Hon. Members on both sides have made that point strongly. An eloquent Conservative Member demanded recently improvements. These matters concern all hon. Members, and I do not believe that the policies spelled out by the Minister will deal with them substantially. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to enlighten us more about what the Government intend to do to keep these people off the streets, out of the prisons and out of the cemeteries.
The Minister of State spoke at some length about carers and I was glad to hear him say that they should have top priority. Many of them bear enormous and unfair burdens. Carers are more overworked, worn out and exploited than workers in any sweatshop in the east end ever were. They are the martyred millions; 6 million of them have had their lives pushed out of kilter because of their affection for relatives. The Minister said that they had been given £1 million more, but they have saved billions of pounds by the care which they have devoted to people in need. It is not possible to solve their problems with £1 million or even more—they need much more cash and they must be given the money. It is imperative that they get it. They must be recognised, consulted and supported. They need respite care, specifically allocated financial support and involvement in the creation of new care packages for their dependent relatives. When the Government provide those, we shall be on our way to proper community care for Britain's disabled people.
5.37 pm
Sir David Price: Unlike the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) I welcome the fact that we are having this debate before the White Paper, because we
56
heard from the Deputy Prime Minister in Blackpool that the Government have become a listening Government, and I shall take them at their word. In the interests of brevity I intend briefly to put to the Government some of the issues that I hope will feature in the White Paper. Inevitably I shall cover some ground which has already been covered by others.
I want to take up a point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)—the recognition that some people need permanent asylum: I use the word in the proper technical sense. The House will recall that the Social Services Select Committee produced a report in the session 1984–85 which dealt with the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. We were concerned about the speed with which profoundly mentally handicapped people were being turned out of long-stay institutions without adequate provision. In theory, there were plans for their care but in practice they were not being carried out.
I remind the House of what we said at the time:
"While the disabilities of long-stay patients may well be heightened by institutional care, the simple facts are that there is little prospect of major change for the better for many mentally disabled people … The concept of asylum has nothing inherently to do with large or isolated institutions. Asylum can be provided in a physical and psychological sense in the middle of a normal residential community: traditionally indeed, in the midst of a busy church. We must face the fact that some people need asylum."
I repeat our conclusion that some people need asylum.
We also need to take into account the demographic facts upon which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister touched. We must recognise, as the Royal College of Nursing has said, that among those over 75 the rate of various forms of dementia requiring 24-hour nursing care is currently running at between 21 and 22 per cent. The college says that there is no reason to suppose that that percentage will drop. In real terms, by simply extrapolating demographic trends, we see that by the end of the century we must make provision for between 80,000 and 100,000 more dependent people with dementia. We are talking about nursing care. It is not fair to ask ordinary care attenders or social workers to cope with that. That is my first point—the need for asylum.
Secondly, there is a need to quantify the number of clients with whom this public policy is trying to cope. I remind the House of the wise words of a famous Scottish physicist, the late Lord Kelvin, who said:
"When you can measure what you are speaking of, and express it in numbers, you know that of which you are discussing. But when you cannot measure it, and express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a very meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
It is time that we made the message a little less meagre and less unsatisfactory. I hope that the White Paper will attempt to quantify it.
The task has been made infinitely easier by the reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on the number of disabled people in our midst. Extrapolation of the demographic trends and percentages such as those that I have quoted from the Royal College of Nursing on the elderly can give us a reasonable estimate of the number of people with whom we shall have to cope. I can tell the House that there are far more such people out there needing support than are recognised in official statistics.
My third point follows from that. It is that we must have better resourcing of care in the community. We all agree that if we are to make public policy more effective,

57
it must be properly resourced. That means that it must be more generously and more effectively resourced. That is the message of Griffiths, of the Audit Commission and of every organisation in the health care business that submitted evidence to us. No mention has yet been made in this debate of the telling report from the Audit Commission. In the simple language of the King's Fund Institute:
"More and better-used resources will be required."
Does my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the Treasury agree?
If the local authorities are to be the vehicle for these more and better-used resources, it is imperative that the contributions of central Government should be in the form of specific grants and should be ring-fenced. I think that every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has made that plea, and I should like to reinforce it. Whatever earlier hesitations he had, I trust that the Minister, having listened to the debate, will accept that argument in his White Paper. It should appeal to the Treasury and certainly to the Audit Commission.
My next point is about the need for an inspectorate. The proposal for local authorities to make arrangements for independent care facilities to be inspected by them is welcome. Nevertheless, some major organisations have argued for national standards covering both the private and public sectors. Here central Government must play their part as the procurers and enforcers of standards. The social services inspectorate will have powers to monitor community care plans, but unless it is given wider powers its recommendations can be ignored by local authorities —as they currently are.
I plead with the Minister to beef up the social services inspectorate. If he is worried about that being a revolutionary advent, I remind him that under the first Elizabethan poor law, which, as the House will recall, was administered by the parishes, the Privy Council had a duty to monitor the effectiveness of the parishes in implementing care in the community as it was conceived in those days. Therefore, there is good precedent behind my argument.
Finally, may I return to the old theme with which I have burdened the House in the past and which I have noticed other hon. Members have taken up—the importance of private carers? In so doing I declare a personal interest. Far more dependent people are being cared for at home than are being cared for in all the hospitals, institutions and rest homes whether statutory, charitable or private in the kingdom. Therefore, the first priority of any more active policy for care in the community must be to improve the lot of private carers. In his July statement, the Minister praised that concept and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State did the same today.
Are the Government and the House aware that two thirds of live-in carers receive no help at all from any service? Some of them may be caring 24 hours a day for very dependent relatives and may be working round the clock with no support. Caring for the doubly incontinent is no gentle pastime and looking after a dotty old relative is demanding and exhausting. That fact alone puts into perspective the role of the carer in our society. From its own experience, the House will know that carers come in all shapes and sizes and that they cover the entire age spectrum. Many elderly people are themselves carers. That fact must be emphasised and, given the demographic forecast, the number will increase.
58
While the personal circumstances in each case may vary greatly, the common factor is that most carers have consciously chosen, or accepted, the role of looking after their dependent relatives because they love them. For I hat reason they do not want to hand over the job to anyone else. However, caring for someone who is heavily dependent is continuous, tiring, stressful and restrictive. It can impose serious strains upon other relationships in a family.
We should think of the effect on other children in the same family that comes from looking after a severely mentally handicapped child. There is no 40-hour week in the caring game. Outside help at key times on both a regular and a one-off basis can make the difference between a total breakdown and a successful and loving partnership between the carer and the cared for.
I hope that we can all agree that carers need more backup, regular support and emergency assurances. They especially need sound professional support if they are to fulfil their mission as carers and still have any hope of even a modicum of a personal life of their own. I invite the Minister to spell out in his White Paper how the community can support the carers more effectively. That is essential if we are to make a success of any improved national policy for care in the community. I and I suspect other hon. Members will judge the validity of the White Paper by the extent to which the Minister succeeds in doing just that.
5.48 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Although I welcome once again the opportunity to debate this subject, I thought that this important issue was to come before us quite soon and that during the recess we would see the White Paper. However, that was not to be. Like everyone else, I naturally assumed that, as the Government had scheduled community care as the business for today, the purpose would be to discuss some concrete proposals. From what the Minister said, I understand that the White Paper is now expected in early November. If that is so, I doubt whether what is said in the debate will have time to make a great deal of difference to the content of the White Paper.
The matter is extremely urgent, as previous debates have shown. The lack of care in individual cases in some areas and in certain sections of the community service has led to an intolerable level of neglect. Social services departments are presently working at crisis level. I say that from experience of my own authority of Sefton. They are responding with short-term solutions. Many long-term strategies are abandoned because of the shortages of funds and grave doubts about what the future holds.
I know that community care is a complex issue that requires thorough investigation, and I should be a little happier about the delay if I thought that it was due to Ministers conducting an in-depth study to ascertain what the true needs of the community are, in terms of care for the elderly, the handicapped, the disabled and the mentally ill, and then devising plans as to how best the needs can be met. However, I fear that the delay has more to do with the conflict in policy and ideology between the Prime Minister and her many advisers and to the narrow terms of reference within which the proposals for community care are now to be drawn up.

59
I am referring to the fanaticism with which some members of the Government approach any service that is remotely connected with the welfare state and the need that they see to reduce public spending while increasing support for the private sector. Such thinking is often coupled with the view that local government can be tolerated only if it has its hands tied firmly behind its back.
It is clear that the recommendation by Roy Griffiths that local government should act as the lead agency for community care services was accepted only reluctantly by the Government. We must now ensure that local authorities receive the resources that they need to fulfil this role, not only financially but in terms of manpower and training. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there would be a full commitment to training. We must take care that local government does not become the Government's whipping boy. I take that view not because, I am soft on local government—far from it—but because, if that were to happen, many people in need of community services would not receive them.
We all know that a policy of care in the community is not a cheap option, but we do not know what will be the true cost of that policy. There is no adequate means to assess the many different forms of care, and I hope that some investigations are carried out to rectify this. What is certain is that the present level of resources is not enough. Too many people are out in the cold and too many have been allowed to slip through the net. I fear for the future. We have little knowledge about the allocation of funds to local government except the few hints given to us by the Secretary of State in his statement on 12 July, which in effect amounted to a cash-limited system.
We were also told that funds would not be earmarked. This will make it difficult to identify the amount allocated for community care services at national and local level. This raises a number of issues that I hope that the Minister will address. Given that there is already a great shortage in the amount of money required, will he guarantee extra resources to meet the demands not only of providing for the numbers who need support but of ensuring the type of support that is needed? The requirements and costs of care for the elderly, the handicapped, the disabled, and the mentally ill are different, and I hope that the proposals will allow for assessments of funding for the needs of each client group.
It is expensive to provide constant 24-hour care for those suffering from senile dementia, the numbers of which increase every day. This point has been mentioned already, but it needs to be mentioned again. When local authorities are forced to make choices between services, such a community care group will be neglected. The poorer authorities, where often those in the most need live, will be the hardest hit in any cash-limiting exercise.
The Government's attempt to put pressure on local authorities to use the independent sector by refusing to fund people in local authority homes will have devastating consequences. The provision of private and voluntary homes varies considerably across the country. It is not viable for the voluntary or private sectors to set up all those homes in some inner-city, rural or suburban areas. Some people will be cared for in local government homes out of necessity and others out of choice. Neither should be discriminated against.
60
We support the provision of personal care packages, which would involve a pluralist approach to community care. My party has long called for the Government to act as an enabler—I was pleased to hear the Minister say this as well—rather than a universal provider. We are adamant that some public provision must remain as an option in community care services. It is intolerable that, even in the present circumstances, local authorities are being forced to sell off their residential homes to ensure that there are adequate standards of care. In the interests of choice and as a means of last resort, the individual client and carer must be given access to public provision.
The public sector has not generally provided care for the more vulnerable members of society, and the voluntary sector should not be expected to take too many contracted-out services. If it does, it is inevitable that its services will change in character and the community will lose the benefits of the flexibility, innovation and new initiatives that many voluntary organisations now provide.
There is not and cannot be any obligation on the independent sector to make provision for any form of community care, and if it closes down its operations in an area without public provision, it will be difficult and expensive for the local authority to restart its residential care provision. Once again, the more vulnerable and the disadvantaged will suffer the most.
I said earlier that community care is a complex issue. Unless one has experience of it or is advised by those with some experience on the ground, one will never grasp all its complications and implications. I have much to learn, but the Secretary of State has even more. After his statement on 12 July, I asked him about housing within community care and whether he would direct that local authorities would receive more finance for this purpose. While I accept that the solution does not entirely lie with the Department of Health, the Secretary of State's reply—
"but I honestly do not think that housing finance is remotely related to what I am talking about today"—[Official Report. 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 984.]—
leaves me with little hope of a co-ordinated community care policy from the Government.
Does the Secretary of State not know that many community care projects involve housing and capital finance? These include the provision of housing for those with special needs to live independently, ordinary housing for handicapped people to be trained for independent living, sheltered accommodation for the elderly, hostel provision for the more vulnerable and special units to provide short-term respite care for the carers. I could go on, but I hope that I have made my point and that the White Paper offers some proposals for ensuring some provision for capital finance for community care projects.
I shall look with interest at the proposals in the White Paper that lay out the respective responsibilities of the health authorities, family practitioner committees and local government. For instance, will it make clear who is responsible for a patient who is discharged from hospital with certain needs but who is assessed by the local authority in a way that does not meet those needs? Who will provide the care? Will it be the health authority, the local authority or the general practitioner? Above all, who will make the decision? This is critical to the whole matter. Will there be a single point of access for clients and carers or will they, as they do now, have to negotiate a mammoth maze before reaching their objective?

61
Will the White Paper spell out how the Government's proposals relate to those contained in the White Paper "Working for Patients"? Will self-governing trusts have responsibility for ensuring that adequate community care provision is available for discharging those in need, such as the elderly after an acute illness? Who will be responsible for community units that opt out? Will it be the Secretary of State, the health authority or local government?
What guarantee will there be that health authorities will provide the medical services such as geriatric care, including geriatric psychiatry, that any care in the community requires? Will they retain enough funds to provide community services, or will those funds be drained off by the acute sectors, the hospitals?
The dividing line between medical care and social care is not always apparent or easy to define. It is important that an atmosphere of co-operation and co-ordination exists between all agencies so that the client and carer do not find themselves stuck in no man's land, which often happens now. One of the important measures to assist in that direction will be to ensure that each agency has sufficient funds to prevent the practice of dumping.
It is important also to ensure that all sectors are involved and represented at strategic planning level and in the plans for the everyday operation. Without clear-cut lines of responsibility between the agencies and without safeguards for the consumer, there could be catastrophe. Changes to the National Health Service taking place at the same time as community care services will create chaos. I only hope that both services come through them in a recognisable form.
It will be virtually impossible to plan for the future, as there will be so many unpredictables. One essential step is to extend the statutory duty of local government to include all community care client groups. The proposals that are set out in the White Paper, which we hope will create a system that is based on individual selection and packages of care, must include national guidelines and standards of care, with the mechanisms to monitor them, so that we can ensure a degree of equity and access to services along with quality of services.
The client and the carer should have easy access to information that sets out their rights and their entitlements, including the right to be consulted and involved in the decisions that affect them. They have a right to advocacy and to a simple procedure for complaints.
On 12 July, the Secretary of State said:
"The great bulk of community care will continue, as now, to be provided by family, friends and neighbours."—[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 976.]
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken on board some of the comments and concerns that have been expressed by the Carers Association. I have the honour of holding office within it in the branch that is local to me. Demographic trends show clearly that the elderly population is increasing rapidly while the proportion of those who are available to care for the elderly is declining.
Another factor is the trend of Government Departments to pursue polices that are designed to attract women into the work force. I hope that the White Paper will contain a package of care for informal carers that takes into account their loss of earnings and career opportunities as well as the need for a wide range of support services, including short and long-term respite care.
62
I call upon the Government to show their good faith by implementing in full the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which among other things provides for local authorities to take the needs of the carer into account when making assessments. If the Government were to provide the resources to enable local government to carry out its duties under the 1986 Act, I would have rather more confidence in assurances that adequate resources will be provided for whatever the White Paper may contain.
If the Government were to accept the premise that care in the community is not a cheap option and commit themselves to providing sufficient funds, they might find an improvement in the popularity of the Conservative party among the electorate. A MORI poll, which was published in Reader's Digest under the heading "Britain, a Caring Society", shows that on average people are prepared to add £2·28 to their individual tax bill to support disadvantaged groups. In the order of priority it was those groups in need of community care that appeared at the top of the list.
Community care should not be left to charity. It is one of the rights that is part of being born into a privileged and civilised society.
6.5 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the Government's response to the Griffiths report as, I believe, do all the organisations which are involved in the caring services, even including, perhaps, the British Medical Association.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is right to reaffirm the principle of community care and to seek to build on what has been achieved already which has been considerable during the past 10 years. There has been a 40 per cent. increase in resources in both health and social services for community care. That it is no mean achievement and the Government deserve full credit for bringing it about. The increase in benefits for supporting people in private residential homes increased from £10 million a year in 1979 to no less than £878 million last year. That is remarkable.
It is vital that the rate of increase be maintained, for three good reasons. First, we must ensure that the Griffiths recommendations are properly implemented by the new community care authorities. Secondly, we must be able to cope with the increasing number of elderly people, about which we are increasingly being warned. We are told that the problem will hit the country generally, but we in my constituency have more experience than most of accommodating an elderly population, and I think that we do so quite successfully. Thirdly, I believe that there is a serious underestimate of the numbers of the mentally ill who are in need of care. Their numbers will increase in the years to come as a result of the breakdown of family life and of marriage. The trends are upwards. There are also the consequences of an inability to cope with the technological changes that are taking place, which will undoubtedly continue in future. All of us have met such people in our surgeries and have done our best to help them.
In passing the buck of community care to social service authorities we must ensure that they will have enough bucks to do the job. The Dorset authority is concerned because neither it nor the Government have undertaken

63
any accurate quantification of demand and cost. The authority feels that there will be a shortfall and it looks to the White Paper for reassurance. It is concerned especially, as I am, that social security payments to people in the community for board and lodging have not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living.
From the representations that I continue to receive from members of Dorset Association for Sheltered Homes, who I believe undertake one of the most valuable and underrated forms of community care in offering hostel and sheltered lodging for the mentally ill and those who would otherwise be homeless, it would appear that current payments no longer meet the cost of living, especially as the maximum rate for hostels has been pegged since 1986. I do not see how such establishments can be expected to survive much longer on that basis. I must warn my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that unless the private and voluntary sectors that are involved in community care are financially viable, far from filling the greatly enhanced role that is expected of them, as recommended by the Griffiths report, they will contract and the recommendations set out in the report will not succeed.
It is right, however, that the social service authorities should be the new community care authoritie s. Having chaired a social services area committee, I believe that county councillors, who are in close partnership with their officers and with local carers, are in a unique position to identify local needs and to initiate new ideas. Why cannot those who represent areas that are covered by neighbourhood watch schemes ascertain what can be done to extend the security aspects of the schemes to include care?
A widespread complaint that I receive from carers is that there is insufficient information about the care services that are available. Perhaps county councillors can ensure that sufficient information is available.
The new community care authorities will have some extremely challenging decisions to make, not least the future of local residential homes. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has emphasised, and as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said when he opened the debate, the authorities will have new roles as enablers and funders of care, for which they will have a budget, rather than being mere providers of social and residential care.
This policy, however, must be phased over years. The sudden announcement of a proposed closure of a residential home without any immediate apparent alternative would not encourage public support for community care. It would have a devastating effect on the residents in the home, who had expected to live out their remaining years in what had become for them their one and only home with their fellow residents and the staff, who had become to them their family. There is such a case in my constituency with the recommended closure of the Henley Court home. The residents—my constituents—are understandably concerned and confused about what will happen to them, but no one in authority can yet tell them what their future will be. Elderly people, for whom the local authority has undertaken to care, cannot be treated in that way.
The same principle should apply to the proposed closure of a residential home as that which the
64
Government rightly insist should apply to the closure of mental hospitals—that is, that a clear plan for suitable alternative provision for the residents must accompany any plan for closure. All the residents should be kept together if that is possible, and if it is their wish. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), whose constituency also faces the closure of the Labourne House home, has asked to be associated with the concerns that I have expressed.
As social service authorities become the enablers of care, there will be a wider interest in residential and nursing care opportunities outside their own areas, but I question whether there is an adequate centralised source of information available. I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister the Elderly Accommodation Council, a charity for which I act as honorary adviser, without an interest. It has computerised information on most of the residential and nursing homes and sheltered housing throughout the country and provides a unique placement service for carers.
There remains considerable scope in the private sector for better inspection and monitoring of residential and nursing homes, notwithstanding the improvements that the Government have introduced during recent years, and which both the Griffiths and Wagner reports recommend-ed. I fear that frail, elderly and confused people may be regarded as a soft touch by unscrupulous and insensitive carers, who provide services devoid of any quality and imagination. They must be snuffed out.
I wish to confine my remaining remarks to the care of the mentally ill, in which I take a personal interest as parliamentary consultant to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. As many hon. Members are aware, that organisation is composed of the relatives and friends of sufferers. They are the real community carers, who work without pay, support, training or holidays, and often for a lifetime. In many ways, they are more expert than the experts in dealing with schizophrenia because they must live with what is happening on the ground. They did much to campaign for the Griffiths review, and they are delighted with the concept of the comprehensive care package as outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister in his statement on 13 July. However, they remain concerned at the rising percentage of readmissions, which suggests a lack of social support for those who have stayed in hospital for less than six months. Of the 26,000 people diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia in 1986, 24,000 left hospital after a stay of less than six months. As most of those are not covered by section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, many experience squalor, misery and neglect, which in turn leads to crime and suicide.
My private Member's Bill dealing with schizophrenia after-care was especially directed at those people. It is still before the House, and it seeks to disapply the after-care of schizophrenics from current legislation concerned with the mentally ill, and to provide a package of measures exclusively for those people, so that following discharge they do not slip through the net of community care. I urge my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to ensure that his individually tailored care programmes for those discharged will include all that my Bill proposes.
6.14 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I think that this is the first time that I have followed a speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). I was somewhat confused when listening to him because he suggested that out of the proposals would come a community care authority. My criticism is that while that name may be used, in reality there will be no such body emerging from the proposals that the Government put before the House prior to the Summer recess.
Like the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), I am pleased that the matter is being debated prior to the publication of the White Paper because the Government might listen to what we say today. The hon. Gentleman was right to remind the House that the Government are now a thinking and listening Government, but my old gran used to say that the proof of the pudding was in the eating. We shall await the White Paper to determine whether there has been any change in substance.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh made a powerful and important speech. He probably knows more about this topic than any other hon. Member in the Chamber. He said that it was unlikely that there would be a community care authority—not for the reasons that I shall give, but because most care takes place in the family, unnoticed unrecorded and unaided. I hope that the new caring, thinking Government will, before they produce the White Paper, dwell on that point and come up with some concrete proposals which, although they will not cost a great deal of money, will mean a great deal to those who care for others in the community.
It is an interesting point that when Ministers come to the Dispatch Box they talk about the wonderful "job" that carers do; they do not talk about an "activity" or a "pastime". Most of us understand the meaning of "job". It is work and employment. Yet for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the Government treat it as far from a job. When carers cease their caring activities they are not eligible for any benefits in their own rights, yet the provision of benefit is important to them. They face real difficulty re-entering the labour market, so I hope that the White Paper will cover training schemes for some of the younger carers who wish to re-enter the labour market when those for whom they care have died. They should also be eligible for unemployment benefit. Those would be two small but important reforms, which should be announced in the White Paper if we are really serious about changing the status of carers.
I am facing the difficulty faced by all my hon. Friends when we have to follow the opening speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. Indeed, while sitting here today I thought of a reason why I should not vote for him in the shadow Cabinet elections—although I assure him that I will not follow that through. There is real difficulty following him because, on the terms of the motion before us, he has actually completed the debate. Perhaps we should be big enough to say that the debate is over, that we await the Government's response, and all go home. I do not intend to cover the ground covered by my hon. Friend, but shall take the debate a step further.
The Government say that their proposals are the Griffiths proposals, but, as my hon. Friend clearly said, they are not. I therefore fear that there will be the opposite in community care to that which the Government say they
66
want from their health proposals, which is money following the patients. If the Government go down the road announced by the Secretary of State, the opposite will be the case and a major opportunity will be lost. It is one reason why I disagree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East. If there were to be a community care agency, the Government would be radical and brave and bring together all the functions of the different statutory authorities, whether the local authority, the family practitioner committee, social services, education or housing, and put them into one health and community care authority.
Indeed, we could go one stage further—as the hon. Member for Eastleigh has done in private conversation, which I am sure he will not mind me putting on the record —and that would be to put such a body in charge of the whole budget. The reason that the manager, or whatever he will be called, will not be able to deliver on the care package referred to by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East is that he will have to deal with all those different authorities.
We know perfectly well who will win. I want reforms that will deliver to the consumer. It is political consumerism that will dominate the next decade and the decade after that. Unfortunately, the Government's proposals are backward looking, backing the producer and those with vested interests. Many hon. Members with constituents with an interest in receiving a necessary package of care will find that their needs take second place to those of the producer.
Mr. Morgan: I want to confirm what my hon. Friend has said about the package of care that should be produced by the combined resources of the health authority and the local social services department. It was drawn to my attention last night that in Cardiff, following the withdrawal of the community evening nursing service, there has already, pre-Griffiths, been a deterioration. One elderly person, a stroke victim, has had his community evening nursing service withdrawn. Therefore, he has to be put to bed by the afternoon nursing service at 4 pm arid does not get up until 19 hours later. He is mildly incontinent and, since the withdrawal of the community evening service, he has developed pressure sores which a re turning into septicaemia. He will probably have to spend the rest of his life in hospital, costing the state a great deal more. That appears to be care in the community, Tory vintage 1989. That is not good enough.
Mr. Field: No, it is not. If the Government were serious about delivering the community care that the consumers —the people in need of care and the carers—need, the package that we are discussing today would be very different.
Let me make three suggestions to the Government. If they wanted to modify their proposals now and make sure that the money follows the patient rather than vice versa, those three suggestions would find a prominent place in the White Paper.
First, as we know that our constituents would lose out against the producers of the different services, it is crucial that each year part of the budget of those statutory authorities becomes footloose so that workers in hospitals can fulfil part of their contract working in the community.

67
No amount of saying that community nursing is needed will deliver community nursing if people are trapped, via their contracts, into working in hospitals.
Secondly, while many people in need of care and those caring for them will be grateful not to have choices and to have delivered what the social services deliver to them, many others—a growing proportion—want a crucial say in the care that they get. If the Government do not want to turn the world upside down, they should be saying that part of the budget—an increasing part of the budget, if that is what consumers want—should be given to those who need care, or who care, in the form of vouchers. In that way they will be able to have more home helps or more community nurses and rather less institutional care. I fear that the institutions have vested interests and that they will deliver packages suitable to them, which may or may not be suitable to their constituents.
Thirdly, the Government should look carefully at one of their reforms about which they have forgotten and build up the side of community care which gives money to our constituents who need care and who are caring. If I were to ask hon. Members whether they knew what the independent living fund was, most would have only a vague recollection of having discussed it at some time. I shall give way to any hon. Members who can tell me how many of their constituents draw help from the independent living fund. None of my constituents do, but I hope to put that right shortly. Yet that Government initiative allows those who need to buy in care to do so, whether it costs as little as £2 a week or as much as hundreds upon hundreds of pounds a week.
If we were serious about a consumer-led community care policy, the Government would remove that benefit from the Official Secrets Act. Will the Minister give an undertaking tonight that some forms will be printed about that benefit and that they will be made available in post offices, citizens' advice bureaux, social security offices and general practitioners' waiting rooms? Hon. Members might even be given a few as well. The Minister should then say that that will be the development of the future rather than the forgotten benefit that the Government announced because they were so embarrassed about what they were doing to disabled people in the change to income support in 1968. That should become the flagship of the future development of community care. Rather than being covered by the Official Secrets Act, that benefit should play an increasing part. Many of our constituents would benefit enormously from receiving such a benefit.
Let me give one example of what that benefit meant to a family in Wigan where the mother, because of her age, is finding it increasingly difficult to remember what is going on. Her daughters sleep with her during the week, but, because of the independent living fund, they are relieved of that responsibility at the weekend. Neighbours are paid —not a fantastic amount—to look after that lady, a resident in their road. The mother has dignity because she is paying for that care rather than putting on her neighbours. That makes a great difference to her and to her daughters and it makes a great difference to her neighbours and to the hospital services which would otherwise have to look after that lady across the river in Wigan.
68
I understand why the Government have made the change from an open-gate system whereby anybody who is eligible for income support can pick up income support and go into residential care. However, until my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston spoke, I did not understand just how clever the Government would be in ensuring that the total budget does not go to the community.
For all its faults, the old system had one wonderful advantage, which was apparent to me from my surgeries, as I am sure it was to Conservative Members. In the absence of an adequate inspection system, daughters carried out inspections. I say daughters, because we are mostly dealing with old ladies being cared for by their daughters. Women live much longer than men. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, for all sorts of reasons it is women who have taken the lead role.
Because the money follows the old ladies, as soon as a daughter finds that a home is inferior, she works like billy-o to find another. Entry to that home was open because its owner knew that the money was coming from social security with the mother. However, I fear that, even if all the money goes to the social services departments, they will offer a list from which to select a home. We would then have the problem that residents of council accommodation experience when they want to move and the authorities ask what is wrong with where they are living since all sorts of other people are living there and why should they be so fussy about it. Once the bureaucrats take hold, the freedom to choose is lost.
I hope that I have effectively put across two points. We have a thinking, listening Government. The hon. Member for Eastleigh suggested that we cut the cant about worrying about the carer and start delivering something. The first easy move would be to ensure that when a carer ceases his work of caring he should have a full national insurance record for a pension and unemployment pay.
Secondly, younger carers will have difficulty returning to the labour market. Let us make sure that we have training schemes to help them to do so. Many of them have missed 25 years of their career fulfilling their caring functions.
Thirdly, as I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, I am struck by the number of carers who, six months after the death of the person for whom they cared, have a breakdown. It is at that point that the strain breaks through. We should be thinking not only about preventing such breakdowns but about providing adequate support if we fail to do so.
Despite all the Government's talk about making the consumer the sovereign body, I fear that in the hotch-potch of proposals which they call the Griffiths proposals, the consumer will be in the back seat rather than in the driving seat.
I advanced three proposals: first, that new contracts be issued to allow flexible staffing among the different bodies providing care; secondly, that vouchers be introduced to enable people to choose the statutory body from which they wished to buy their care; and, thirdly, that the Government put behind them their secrecy about the independent living fund and proclaim that, above all their other proposals, as the flagship for community care in the future.
6.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has done the House a great service with his contribution. The hon. Gentleman chairs the Select Committee on Social Services with considerable knowledge, compassion and commitment, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is now on an upward learning curve for the purposes of his inquiries into the independent living fund. Perhaps, however, the hon. Gentleman was a little unfair to my hon. Friend in that that aspect is not really his responsibility, but that of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security.
Let me endorse the articulate message in the hon. Gentleman's plea about provision for carers. There is too much cant in this place about the importance of carers, and all too infrequently do we do anything about them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said, without carers tens of thousands of people would have to be found places in residential accommodation or hospitals. Carers are therefore of paramount importance, and the White Paper on the Griffiths report should clearly devote much more thought to provision for them.
I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for visiting my constituency during the recess, thereby honouring a commitment that he made in the House in July. When he came to Macclesfield in September, he paid quite a lengthy visit to the Parkside hospital for the mentally ill, and also visited the young persons' unit in Macclesfield, which caters for young people with emotional and behavioural disorders. I know that he was immensely impressed not only with the facilities at Parkside hospital and the level of care provided by its staff, but with the tremendous work undertaken by Dr. Peter Wells at the young persons' unit, which is probably more successful than any comparable unit in the country. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure —as far as his responsibilities enable him to do—that the environment and level of care at Parkside hospital are not reduced when parts of the hospital are sold off for development, and that Dr. Wells's team can continue to provide fantastic rehabilitation, care and treatment for young people.
I also endorse what has been said by almost every speaker: that although we may be disappointed that there is not yet a White Paper on Griffiths, the Government are genuinely listening to the debate and will take on board the extremely good points that so many hon. Members have made. Those who have spoken so far are immensely knowledgeable: far from voicing instinctive views on issues about which they, in isolation, hold fervent beliefs, they have advanced informed proposals based on a knowledge resulting from lengthy involvement in community care.
How right my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh was to quote Lord Kelvin, who said that anyone who spoke of such matters should have the facts at his fingertips. Let me pick up the point made so articulately by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who does a great deal of work for the National Schizophrenia Fellowship—with which I, too, work closely. He mentioned the 1986 figures relating to the admission of schizophrenics to mental hospitals in England, which totalled over 25,000. That figure is not plucked from the clouds; it matches the figures for 1984 and 1985, and thus presents a typical picture.
70
My hon. Friend did not, however, mention what. I consider a particularly important figure. In 1986, 90 per cent. of schizophrenics admitted to mental hospitals were being readmitted after having a relapse. I mention that because it is clear to me that long-stay psychiatric hospitals are needed—in the right environment, of course, and rehabilitated and brought up to date. It would be a tragedy for us to allow such wonderful sites, some lying within communities, to be destroyed. My hon. Friend the Minister has seen Parkside hospital in my constituency: it has a superb environment of peace and tranquillity, and it is vital that that facility—as well as the building itself, and the superb staff who go with it—should continue in being.
I warmly welcome much of the Griffiths report; I think it important, however, to put down a number of priority markers. In respect of assessment, I consider it vital to draw up a national scale of need so that even standards may be ensured throughout the country. That has been suggested by many organizations—not only those in the public sector, but private-sector bodies such as the National Care Homes Association. I welcome the Government's determination to achieve better standards. Surely, however, what is needed is a national registration and inspection system—independent of any one sector and covering all residential homes—so that the independent private sector is not monitored only by the public sector, and the public sector does not in turn neglect its own house, which would be very dangerous.
As for resources and funding, it is essential—as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said—that the care element of cost should be ring-fenced to prevent diversion of money for other purposes. If the Government are serious about Griffiths, they must ensure that that is done; otherwise people will suspect—rightly or wrongly—that they are trying to get away with making the change on the cheap. That would be a tragedy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, the Social Services Select Committee carried out an in-depth inquiry into community care for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, the report of which was published in the 1984–85 Session. The Committee concluded that, far from requiring less money, community care would inevitably require much more. Those involved in community care would have total trust in the steps proposed by the Government if they admitted that fact and were prepared to provide specific grants.
There must be comprehensive and continuous monitoring of the performance of local authority social service departments, and local authorities would be happy for that to happen. The only way to ensure the delivery of the community care we need is to achieve proper standards throughout the country through an effective permanent body answerable to the Secretary of State, and I support those who recommend the establishment of a national community care agency or other body. Local authorities and the independent private sector would like to see such a body set up.
I have been committed for many years to the area of provision for the mentally ill. The Minister recognises that the mentally ill represent a special problem and I am aware of the representations that he has received from, among others, SANE and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Those representations have led him to take a close interest in what is happening to the mentally ill.
I am pleased that the Government have issued instructions to the effect that no patient shall be discharged

71
from a psychiatric hospital unless there is proper care and accommodation at an alternative site or within the community. I am pleased that the Minister stressed the importance of the fact that no mental hospital, such as Parkside, shall be closed until there is adequate provision, accommodation and care elsewhere in the community for the patients of that hospital.
Having taken an active interest in matters relating to the mentally ill for 10 or more years, my sincere view is that there is and always will be a need for long-stay hospital care, particularly for the more acute patients suffering from schizophrenia. I hope that when any application is made to the Department by a health authority for the closure of a hospital for development or other purposes —remembering how valuable such sites are and how badly many regional and district health authorities require the money—the Minister will consider the request carefully to ensure that the standard of care and extent of provision for the mentally ill is in no way eroded by the closure. Indeed, he should feel sure that the standard of care and provision of accommodation for the mentally ill will be enhanced by such a closure and the money that might result from the development of the site.
I hope that the Minister, who now has a considerable understanding of the difficulties facing the mentally ill, will have taken on board the points that I and others have made and will ensure that when the White Paper is published, the mentally ill are, and will continue to be, a priority.
6.43 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: A frightening aspect of the Government's attitude towards health policy is their ability to take what is basically an important idea—such as care in the community—and turn it into something different, like an organist who takes the song of a nightingale and turns it into the sound of a cash register.
It is clear from the debate that hon. Members on both sides fear what is really behind the Government's attitude towards care in the community. Indeed, already in the constituencies we can see some of the practical effects of the changes that have occurred. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke of mental health care. He and I, with the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), have a common interest in a large hospital at Cranwich, where we see in microcosm many difficulties that I foresee arising from the attitude to Griffiths that is being taken by the Government.
Cranwich hospital is a large Victorian establishment spread over many acres. A great deal of money had to be spent on it, and despite some valiant efforts to update it, much remained to be done. The agreement among the patients and their families towards changes that would result in many of the patients going out into the community, and otherwise being cared for in changed circumstances, was obtained on the undertaking that, within the grounds of that enormous Victorian hospital, special village accommodation would be built.
During the time I have been in the constituency, a different picture has emerged. There have been constant moves towards developing the acreage for housing and pressure to move the patients out of the existing buildings
72
and into the community, in some cases irrespective of the quality of care that they would receive. There has been no agreement to develop the plans for building a village for the patients requiring to remain within the mental health care services.
That is the reality of the situation, and when we consider the steps that the Government propose, we are frightened about what will happen next. Having listened carefully to the Minister's remarks, I heard not one clear undertaking that he is prepared to go in for the necessary training, to provide the money that is needed and to find ways to seek suitable management facilities for the changes that he is proposing. There is no clear evidence that local authorities will be able to provide the increasing sums that will have to be made available to make those changes work. The difficulties that are now emerging in my constituency and elsewhere will lead to continuing problems.
There have been cases of purpose-built old people's homes run by county authorities closing because the authorities can no longer support them and provide the level of care that is necessary. Those authorities have been forced, despite tremendous local opposition, to close homes. I have in mind an elderly persons' home on a site which only one political party tried to retain on that site. The only alternative to what the local authority proposed was the suggestion that the home be put into a private trust.
Let us consider what happens when NHS or social service facilities are hived off into private trusts, and I speak with authority on this issue because what I have described has happened more than once. In the first instance, people are happy to give a commitment to retain a facility that they appreciate is essential. They then spend great effort and time trying to raise the necessary money. Within a short while, however, it becomes clear to them that the constant raising of cash to support such voluntary organisations makes it impossible for the facility to continue on a professional basis, as was the case when the state supported it.
I foresee, at a time when a determined attempt is taking place at what I can only call the balkanisation of the NHS, nothing but total chaos ahead, especially if the Government's proposals go ahead in parallel with hospitals being allowed to opt out and GPs having constantly to worry about the extent of their budgets and the facilities they can provide.
Who will police adequately the standards of care of the elderly in the community? Elderly folk in my constituency are already being told that there is no NHS facility available for them and that they will have to go into the private sector. When they are offered the list of homes to which they can go, they immediately find a discrepancy between the money available from social security and the fees that have to be paid in the private sector. Some people can absorb that difference, but many people cannot, and it represents an increasing difficulty.
What does one say to a state registered nurse, herself desperately trying to keep a private unit viable, when she says, "I have an elderly gentleman, who is doubly incontinent and who has had a stroke. He has been with me for three years, but I cannot get an increase from the state for his support and he has no living relatives or any assets to find the difference between my fees and the amount of money paid for his care"? If the Minister can give me the answer I shall be comforted. I assure him that

73
that example demonstrates that the onus of care for an elderly person has been moved from the state and from those who should decide on the right level of care to the management of a private home, which is then faced with almost insuperable difficulties. In the future that problem will become more and more common. Those nursing homes will be forced to ask whether they should evict those who have been in their care and then worry about whether they will be picked up from the street outside or whether they should continue on a declining path until they reach the point when they can no longer produce viable profits to meet the economic demands necessary to keep those homes going.
This is the Government who insisted on the explosion of private health care and it is they who are closing down the local authority alternatives. For purely dogmatic reasons, they are making it impossible for many elderly people who want to remain within the state system to find a suitable place.
Time and again today the case has been made for real support for the carer. There is little reality in the glossy phrases used to praise those carers. We know that they find no joy in their situation even though they dearly love their relatives. When they are utterly exhausted they find it impossible to see that justice will be done to them under the existing system.
During my time in the House my grandmother, who was 98 and nearing the end of her life, was nursed at home. To give her 24-hour cover took five adults and three of them had medical or paramedical qualifications. I assure the Minister that few people in my constituency could offer that degree of cover. To say to a women of 5ft 1 in that for all but one hour a day she must nurse an 18 stone, 6ft 1 in man who has suffered a massive stroke is to condemn that woman to an insufferable life. Such care diminishes the quality of the carer's existence and frequently leads to a deterioration in the health and future life of that carer.
The paper before us gives no clear future plan for how health care will be delivered to the elderly or, especially, to the mentally ill. It is a glossy representation of an empty policy. If the Minister is sincere he will say not just that the Government are prepared to commit resources to meet the changes that they are suggesting, but that they are prepared to give training and to decide who will do the assessments and how they will be carried out. Above all, in the interim, the Government should make it clear that they will give sufficient resources to local authorities so that there is an alternative to private care. In that way, those who do not want to go out to the private sector can remain within local authority care in the places that they know and where they are and will be happy.
I can tell the House what happens when one decants, to use the fashionable phrase, a number of elderly people from a home where they have lived for a long time. They save one a lot of bother; most of them die. That is not my answer to health care, and nor should it be the Minister's.
6.54 pm
Mr. John Marshall: In the summer when I spoke in the debate on community care, I did so for precisely three minutes. I cannot promise to be equally brief tonight, but I am conscious of Mr. Speaker's advice that we should speak for no more than 10 minutes.
Since the summer I have spoken to a number of people who have been the victims of the community care policies
74
followed until now. I refer to the relatives and parents of schizophrenics who suffer twice over—they suffer the agony of the illness of their sons, daughters or relatives and they also suffer a sense of dissatisfaction at the hopelessness of the treatment offered to their relatives.
Common characteristics have been apparent in the cases that have been brought to my attention. The first is the acute difficulty that relatives encounter in having their sons or daughters sectioned. In one case, the parents told me that their son had been in and out of a mental hospital six times, but he had been sectioned only once. Another set of parents told me that their daughter had been in and out of mental hospitals for 10 years, but never once had she been sectioned. In another case a father walked into my surgery in an extremely distressed state. His son had walked out of Napsbury hospital, gone to the local building society, taken out all his money and travelled to Marseilles. The father had been asked to go to collect him or to ensure that he could be brought home.
There is no doubt that until the 1950s we were far too willing to force people to go into mental hospitals. I believe, however, that we have moved from one extreme to the other and that now it is too difficult for someone to be detained compulsorily. When someone deals with an individual suffering from a physical illness he knows that that person will agree to accept a course of treatment. We must accept, however, that in mental illness the course of medication may be unpleasant and that the victim may be unwilling to suffer it until the end of the course. When such people move into the community for care they are often unwilling to continue with their medication. Frequently that medication is unpleasant, frequently the patient feels cured and, frequently, there is inadequate supervision.
Many patients discharged from mental hospitals are not registered with general practitioners. Who will supervise them? There is an inadequate supply of community psychiatric nurses and as a result many such patients go unsupervised. The parent of a schizophrenic wrote to me saying, "Brian never turned up for treatment and no one ensured that he did.". No one took any action to ensure that that individual who needed treatment undertook it. As a result of such neglect, a number of those who have been let out and who have been recommended for care in the community turn to violence.
In one case I was told that Dr. X struck off the individual because of his bad behaviour and that no other practice was willing to accept him. That man has no solicitor either. The solicitor refused to act for him because of his impossible behaviour. The man has no home. The hostel that the probation officer found for him has banned him because of his aggressive and impossible behaviour. It is ironic that some of those who sleep rough are people who have been sent into the community for care, but they end up with no doctor, no solicitor and no home. As a result, a number of such individuals turn to crime.
It was written of one of my constituents:
"He returned to live in Barnet. Since then he has been arrested by the local police a few times. They have called the crisis team who do nothing. Next morning Hendon Magistrates Court do nothing."
It is a supreme irony that we are closing mental hospitals, which are expert at treating the mentally ill, and we are building additional prisons where some of the mentally ill who have been sent into the community for care in the community will end up. Many of those who are sent to receive so-called care in the community indulge in

75
anti-social behaviour. I remember a deputation coming to one of my surgeries and asking for help. They lived in a block of council flats where one of their neighbours was a discharged patient receiving care in the community. He played his hi-fi system for 16 hours a day starting at 8 o'clock at night. That was not care in the community for him and he was causing many problems for his neighbours.
It was written of another of my constituents:
"His neighbours live in fear of his verbal abuse, loud music played day and night and at times violent behaviour."
All that is a denial of care in the community. It is good neither for the victims nor their neighbours and relatives.
Of course, these stories cover only a minority of schizophrenics. Many will recover, but I am referring to the hard core who will always be vulnerable. For them a mental hospital is a genuine asylum; a refuge for them, their relatives and the rest of society. We must accept a greater role for compulsory care. There must be a greater willingness to issue a section notice. For those who are going into the community, a community treatment order would ensure that the treatment that they were meant to receive was undertaken. Surely it is nonsense that people should be encouraged to go into the community to receive treatment and then not receive adequate treatment with no one to check up and find out what is going wrong. Only if that happens will the individual have a chance of recovering. Everyone who leaves a mental hospital must be registered with a general practitioner before entering the community. What hope has he if he goes into the community without being registered with a GP?
Finally, Dr. Tannoch was surely right to say that there should be a computerised list of all those who have been released into the community so that people can check up every six months that they are receiving the care and attention they deserve. Every six months we all receive a notice from our dentist requesting the pleasure of our company. We do not always reply saying we would like the pleasure of his. If a dentist can check up on us, there is no reason why we cannot check that those who are meant to receive care in the community are receiving it.
It is clear that the quality of care in the community could and should be improved. There is inadequate supervision and support, and too few psychiatric nurses, day centres and occupational therapists. As mental hospitals close, they generate substantial capital receipts. If a business man was relocating production in a new factory, he would not wait until the existing factory was closed before he built a new one. The National Health Service financial rules which tell a health authority that it can invest the money only when the facility has been closed are wrong. I see no reason why health autorities should not be allowed to borrow on the strength that an asset is about to close and invest that money so that it can provide new and adequate facilities as soon as the hospital closes.
We must also look at the rest of the world. In Japan they compulsorily detain 250,000 patients. Italy passed a law saying that no one could be compulsorily detained, so instead they renamed them "hospital guests" and the effect is the same. We should not indulge in either extreme. We must recognise, first, that for some people there will be a constant need for long-term treatment in hospital; and, secondly, that care in the community cannot be care on the cheap, but must be seen as more effective care. It has not
76
always been seen as that, and it has not always been that, but that must be our goal. We must also remember that to have decent care in the community we need to have a strong economy, and I believe that this Government are more likely to provide it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation.
7.5 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: When I read the letter dated 12 February 1988 from Sir Roy Griffiths to the then Secretary of State, paragraph 18 was of particular interest to me because in my constituency there is a very large mental hospital called Rainhill, which has existed for many years. When I first became a Member of Parliament, there were more than 1,000 patients. At present there are fewer than 500 patients there, which means that in the past six years at least 500 patients have been discharged into the community.
Paragraph 18 of the letter reads:
"Dominant in discusssions and visits was the question of the closure of the large mental hospitals."
One sometimes gets the impression that some of these large mental hospitals are not being closed simply because they are large mental hosptials. I may be overtly suspicious by nature, but the fact that Rainhill is surrounded by some 200-plus acres of prime building land, may have something to do with the view taken by Rainhill hospital by those who run our health authorities. However, I do not have much time for health authorities whose prime object in life appears to be to dispose of large assets without providing alternative facilities in advance of the closure of the hospitals said to be out-of-date, as the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) rightly said.
Nor do I have much time for the assurances of Ministers, if my own experience at St. Helens is anything to go by. In St. Helens we are a bit short of beds for the elderly. I think that we have about 0·5 out of 10 instead of the 10 out of 10 needed to meet our requirements. A delegation of the community health council, councillors from all political parties and myself went to see the Minister with our all-party all-body agreement complain-ing about the closure of geriatric wards at Whiston hospital and the closure of other wards at another hospital so that those beds could pass into the private sector, with no replacement in the public sector. Several months later, as I had half expected, we heard that the Minister was not coming to our aid.
In my constituency, not only is a large mental hospital being run down but we face the reduction of public sector geriatric beds. We have also seen the steady development of the private sector and one understands that the private sector is developing in that area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said only a few moments ago and as I know from my own surgery last Saturday. An elderly couple came to see me saying, "Our brother-in-law is in an old people's home in the private sector. The fees are so much and the trouble is that the money that we get from the social security does not meet the fees. We are about to retire, and the shortfall that we have now carried for many months and years is £25 a week. We cannot afford £25 a week. We have run out of savings. He has terminal cancer and is dying. The doctors say, 'Don't move him,' so what shall we do?

77
What should we do? We are talking about human beings. The letter written on 12 February 1988 says that dominant in our thinking must be the need to protect people being released from long-stay hospitals. Paragraph 6.37 states:
"Those services must include the nomination of a care manager for each long stay patient discharged."
When I go and talk to nurses and staff at Rainhill hospital—who have done a magnificent job over the years —and I ask where those patients have gone, they tell me to try the streets of Birkenhead and Liverpool, and a trip to the church there and to the old people's homes in Colwyn Bay. They are people who lived in that hospital for 30 years. Many of them have now gone to meet their maker. They have died because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, everything they ever had was taken away from them. After 30 years in a mental hospital, it was their home, where they had their friends and their social life.
The hospital is not perfect. It is not wonderful. Conditions are sometimes not very good. Nevertheless, we take that all away from somebody aged 60 or 70 and tip them back into the community, but which community? The one whence they first came? It may well be that she got pregnant in 1928 and the easiest thing in the world was to put her into a mental hospital because that is what we did in those days. The Minister talks about care in the community. We tip them out. It is a death sentence. By all means let us have care in the community, but let us not mess about. Let us do it properly
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said time and time again, care in the community costs. Let us have proper mental hospitals. As a practising lawyer, I declare an interest. I am fed up with going into prisons to see people who should be in mental hospitals. We are a modern society, but what do we do with people who are least able to defend themselves? It is not their fault that they are mentally sick, or mentally handicapped at birth, but it is our responsibility.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) is quite right to refer back to the old Privy Council rules. Two hundred years ago we talked about village care, because the village and the community cared for the weakest among them.
When Griffiths comes to be enacted, we must be prepared to ring-fence and allocate the necessary money because local authorities such as mine, which has a large number of patients who are yet to be discharged, and which has nowhere else for them to go need it. Such patients have to stay in St. Helens. It is the only place they know. They were not born there, but we have a duty to them. We have to be given the facilities to build homes and to maintain them at standards people need.
As has been said, we need long-term hospitals. There is a desperate need for them because some patients need long-term treatment or they cannot be cured. In and out does not do them any good. The handicapped need care and support at all levels.
We must not pursue cheap and easy solutions. We have to invest in the future and build a structure that we can be proud of rather than the one we have at the moment, which we can only be ashamed of.
7.13 pm
Mr. James Couchman: As I am Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, I shall obviously not comment about benefits or money during my speech on this important subject.
As I am a former chairman of a health authority and a social services committee, I have long been involved with care in the community. I have been worried by the ambivalence of responsibility of the Health Service and social services departments, particularly in relation to the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I was a member of the Select Committee which, in 1983 and 1984, considered care in the community in an in-depth study which ranged from here to San Francisco. During our deliberations and investigations we saw the worst and the best of care for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
In America, we saw the ghastly St. Elizabeth's hospital outside Washington, and an extremely old-fashioned place in Nebraska where the mentally handicapped were cared for. We saw soup kitchens in San Francisco and the hostels where people who had been de-institutionalised were decanted, in that wealthy city.
One of the best programmes that we saw during the year was for mentally handicapped people in Nebraska. There was a most progressive scheme for the mentally handicapped within a factory which gives them real work to do, and makes one-to-one care in residential homes available. That was available and being made good use of, and people with severe handicaps were able to have a worthwhile quality of life in the community.
During our deliberations, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield obviously came to certain conclusions which he has expressed in the House on a number of occasions. It is clear that he would prefer to keep long-stay hospitals—the old asylums. In many respects, I sympathise with his worry about people being decanted into the community for whom the community can never be a real place to live. Among the mentally handicapped it is quite clear that the autistic represent a special problem. It is most unlikely that they will ever easily be able to live in the community, and I speak with knowledge on this, as I have an autistic brother-in-law.
I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on 12 July—particularly his assurances with regard to the closures of long-stay hospitals. He said that they will not be closed and that patients will not be discharged into the community until proper and appropriate social and medical provision has been made. That is most important. If we have learnt nothing else over the past 20 years, since the de-institutionalisation and decanting of schizophrenics at the onset of neuroleptic drug treatment, we must have learnt that these people must be cared for properly in the community.
Closure of long-stay hospitals is not easy. I remember the early meetings about closing down Darenth park hospital in north Kent some 12 to 14 years ago. Last year, the last patient left Darenth park. That is the sort of time scale that we are talking about. The creation and provision of appropriate residential and day care facilities for people takes a great deal of providing. We must ensure that those facilities presently available on long-stay hospital sites are bettered when people are moved into the community.

79
I welcome the fact that local authorities have been given a lead role by my right hon. Friend in seeking to clear the line of responsibility. I ask what powers they will have to ensure co-operation on a number of fronts by health authorities. I am particularly worried about the level of expertise within local authority social services depart-ments. Seebohm took us away from specialisation towards generalised social working practice. It is only quite recently that some social services departments have decided that they should go in, once again, for specialised workers, particularly in the areas of mental illness and handicap.
I ask my hon. Friend to tell us what discussions he has had with the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Central Council for the Education and Training of Social Workers, with regard to the future lead role that local authorities will have.
We have heard much about the training of social workers and that is going to be terribly important. It will also be important to train at lower levels than social worker level. Too often, people in the care of the social services departments are being looked after by very young, inexperienced people. Training is essential at that level too. I am not certain that the present qualifications for social workers will fit the bill of my hon. Friend's vision of community care in the future. Perhaps my hon. Friend will say what further thoughts he has had over the summer about these important matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield stressed the number of schizophrenics who return to hospital. Over a period of years, they do so on a revolving door basis. Will that revolving door remain when the present responsibilities are removed? Will local authorities be able to readmit schizophrenics to a hospital appropriate to their needs?
I add my reservations about local authorities being their own monitoring and inspecting agencies for the provision of that important care facility, which will affect many people. An extension of the hospital advisory service may be appropriate, but there must be a national scheme to monitor local authority provision of care.
7.20 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: A debate on community care is of much importance to use in Wales, not only because of the Welsh contribution to the development of the welfare state by people such as Lloyd George, Aneurin Bevan, Jim Griffiths and, more recently, the all-Wales initiative for mentally handicapped people, but because of our interest in the community dimension —the emphasis and value placed on the community.
I could not disagree more with the Prime Minister when she suggested that people do not live in a community, that there is no such thing as society, that we are all individuals and families. I strongly believe that the community is a vital dimension. It has been relevant to the sharing of problems in Wales, which is probably part of our Christian-Socialist tradition.
The sharing of a burden, whether it be problems faced by physically disabled people, the aged and infirm or mentally handicapped or mentally ill people, cannot be left only to friends and families; if it is, the burden falls
80
unfairly, usually on those least equipped to cope and often particularly on women. What about those who have no friends or families to help them?
I recall several cases that have come to my attention recently, such as the wheelchair-bound person in his mid-forties who had a degenerative condition. He lived by himself and had to contemplate going to bed at 5 pm because he could not get assistance to set his splints. The only possibility was to get a volunteer to help, which underlines the need for more community-based nursing services.
Another young man, in his forties, had a history of psychiatric illness. He lived in a flat in the community and discharged his social worker. He died from an overdose of drugs and his body was not found for three weeks, which underlines the need to consider who is in charge of such cases and who is the defined key worker.
A case came to my attention in the past week of a mother of a handicapped child whose husband had died. She had had her invalid care allowance withdrawn at a time when she most needed that support. In another case, a stroke victim's wife dearly wanted to have him home, but he was too heavy for her to handle, she was elderly and the domiciliary nursing services insufficient to enable him to live the remainder of his days at home. Those are only examples, but hon. Members can give further examples to show why we must pay greater attention to community care and ensure that facilities are available for those who need them.
In the past, perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on institutional care. I understand the points made by hon. Members about discharging people from long-stay hospitals without adequate services being provided, but in this debate I would rather concentrate on how we can ensure that people are not drawn into long-stay institutional care in the first place. We must ensure that that is done coherently, by providing the community-based services that are so needed. If those services were available, many people would not need to be incarcerated in institutional care. Inevitably, some people will always need such care, but many do not, which is why we must pay greater attention to community services.
In recent years there has been massive growth in private residential care. The explosion in demand has been created partly by the Government, through the social security system that they have adopted. The system has directed elderly people to residential care irrespective of whether it is what they want or best need.
It is undoubtedly right that Parliament should be considering the workings of the system to ensure three things: first, the flexible provision of care based on individual need with emphasis, where possible, on enabling the individual to choose; to facilitate continued independent living as a valid choice; and to provide proper services that make that practical, irrespective of the individual's ability to pay or otherwise.
Secondly, we must use public resources in the most effective manner to provide the most appropriate care for the individual in the light of the individual's needs. In many cases it may be less expensive to provide domiciliary services—home help, community nursing and domiciliary physiotherapy—than to provide a place in a private residential home. The decision must be taken, however, not because it is cheaper to do that but because it is right for the individual to make that choice.

81
Thirdly, we should be considering the efficient working of the system to allow effective assessment of individual need, the right of advocacy to enable the individual's wishes to be articulated and respected, the general availability of community-based services in all areas and the resources to ensure that there is growth in services in line with the inevitable demographic growth in demand. We need a certainty of provision to give clients the confidence, the security, that they are entitled to expect.
Those are the essentials of any new system towards which we may be moving and are the criteria by which we should be judging the Government's response to not only the Griffiths report but the Audit Commission report, the Firth report and the Wagner report in particular. I hope that today's debate will take those other reports into account.
The Government took much time to respond to the Griffiths report and many questions remain unanswered. I should like to highlight a number of the uncertainties, while welcoming any genuine move to greater personal choice and freedom and greater emphasis on community-based care. The first and overwhelming worry is finance. Many hon. Members have spoken of the need to ensure that the finance given to local authorities is ring-fenced and used for its intended purposes. The Government intend to approach the new policy from a cash-limited perspective, and I am worried about that. The present system is demand-led. People who cannot afford to pay for residential care can get help from the social security system without any cash limit on the global sums that are available, although there may be cash limits on individual sums. The Secretary of State suggested that the new system may be constrained and defined by a budgeted pool of money. On 12 July, he said:
"decisions on resources can only be made in the public expenditure round".—[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 985.]
That is a warning of things to come. From time to time, shortages of finance will make life extremely difficult for people.
The second worry is that the social worker's role may be compromised. He will have to have one eye on limited resources and the other on how to get the best deal for the client. Social services departments will be in the difficult position of trying adequately to monitor the services they provide while having to take cash-limited decisions.
For that reason we must consider the minimum general standards that are acceptable. We must assess not only quality but quantity. Paragraph 6.2 of the Griffiths report is right:
"Local authority social services authorities should be responsible for identifying people with community care needs in their area."
It should be a statutory responsibility for local authorities to know what the needs are and to ensure that they respond to them.
I am worried also about the possible effect of privatisation and competition on the delivery of services. I wonder whether voluntary bodies such as Crossroads will be a part of such a competitive world. That has not been their nature in the past. People involved in them may not want to be a part of a fundamentally different approach.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the issue of uncertainty. What will be the position of a widow who sells her home and goes into a private residential home? She may get £30,000 from the sale of her home, which can keep her going for two or three years, but then
82
she drops below the threshold. At present, she would automatically get help from the welfare state. Under the new proposals, presumably her position will have to be assessed. When that happens, is she likely to be returned to the community? If so, she will think twice about going into a residential home in the first place. She may find herself in some uncertainty.
In summary, we need a system that identifies and assesses all the needs. We need an individual and personal plan tailored to the needs of each person. We need a generality of services in all areas, rural and urban, and an independent monitoring system. We need finance that is ring-fenced and not cash-limited. We need a crash recruitment and training programme for people to carry out this vital work.
7.31 pm
Mr. David Nicholson: As both my parents, who are in their mid-70s but fortunately are in good health, live on the island of Ynys Môn next to the constituency of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I listened to his speech with not entirely uninterested pleasure.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), and reiterated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that these services need to be resourced more generously and effectively. I listened with considerable interest to the points made about carers, especially those made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who speaks with such authority on these matters. Like my hon. Friends, I will be interested to hear the Government's response to those points and I will study the hon. Gentleman's speech in detail.
There are two large hospitals in my constituency—Tone Vale hospital, which deals with the mentally ill, and Sandhill Park hospital, which deals with the mentally handicapped. We all appreciate the extremes to which placements in long-stay institutions can go. In recent months, we have seen on television the dreadful scenes on the Greek island of Leros. As some Opposition Members have said, in previous years pregnant single young women and other members of families whose relatives have got tired of them were easily shunted into these establish-ments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that we must be careful how we go about closing such hospitals.
I welcome the commitment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, which was reiterated at least three times on 12 July—in columns 985 and 990 of Hansard and in reply to me in column 991 of Hansard— that he will ensure that NHS hospitals do not discharge patients until he is satisfied that proper arrangements have been made. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's assurances that
"My social services inspectorate will have an increased ability to step in and inquire into the delivery of services. I shall have increased powers to order reports and inquiries." —[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 987.]
My local health authority, Somerset, is making progress and its detailed proposals will be produced shortly. I welcome the inter-agency work between the Health Service, social services and the voluntary and private sectors, which are all playing their part. In the north of the county—you will have some knowledge of this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since it affects services in your

83
constituency—the number of beds in the Mendip hospital has been reduced to 124, with considerable development of community services. Those of us in the remainder of the county will need to monitor these developments closely. Tone Vale hospital in my constituency has reduced the number of beds from 504 to 420 since 1987. Day services have increased by 40 per cent. and community mental health teams have become operational. The intention is to continue to develop community-based services throughout the county, with the objective of closing the large mental hospitals.
I have had the opportunity of studying the excellently terse briefing from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has referred to the impressive and startling 1986 admissions figure—90 per cent. of schizophrenic admissions were readmissions after relapse. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship points out that withholding ministerial approval for hospital closures shuts the stable door after the horse has bolted, because most beds have gone. There should be recognition of that point. The fellowship referred also to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on 13 April 1988 in column 174 of Hansard on the number of community psychiatric nurses in 1986. Eight district health authorities had none, 17 had five or fewer and the best staffed, Leicestershire, had 43. That echoes the point that we constantly make about the NHS—there are considerable variations in services, equipment and efficiency.
Indeed, the December 1986 report by the Audit Commission states:
"A very uneven pattern of local authority services has developed, with the care that people receive as much dependent upon where they live as on what they need. In well over half of local authorities, expenditure on services for mentally ill people is less than £1 per head of population even though one in ten people each year consult their general practitioner about a mental health problem, and one in a hundred is referred to the specialist psychiatric services".
This problem was brought home to me by a visit that I had two weeks ago from a constituent. The notes that she gave me should sound a note of caution when authorities consider putting patients into the community without ensuring that services are provided for them. I realise however that, on the whole, the position in my area is satisfactory. This lady's son was a former schizophrenic patient of Rampton secure hospital. Four years ago, he returned to Tone Vale hospital and two years ago was released. His parents bought him a house, and this was successful in giving him independence. All seemed to go well. He went back to Tone Vale once or twice for a few days and then returned home.
About five weeks before my constituent came to see me, he announced to his parents that as he was so well he had decided to "cut back" his medication—this often happens in these cases. A few days later, he went off in his car to the south-east. When he returned, his parents noted that he was "much more disturbed". They advised him to go into hospital as an informal patient, but he would not. The parents asked the medical services at Tone Vale to assess whether he needed to be sectioned and were asked three times by the GP, "Do you want him sectioned?" The
84
decision whether he should be taken in was, apparently, to be left to them. Surely that is a decision for experts in the medical and social services.
A few days afterwards, the son smashed the windows in the house, strewed pills everywhere, upset furniture, left and drove away to another part of the south-east, where he severely upset other relatives and appeared to be extremely disturbed. At this stage, in the car were a crossbow, three arrows and two Stanley knives. I should point out that his mother emphasised to me that he had never actually been violent, but there was an element of threat there. She continued:
"We feel that nobody listens to parents. We see tell-tale signs of illness and feel that if our son had been persuaded into hospital three weeks ago he would certainly be more stable by now."
He was eventually taken into hospital and I believe that he is going to be sectioned.
Such loss of control over a former patient was, first, bad for the patient because he will require far more care and will face more difficulties in future as a result. Secondly, it was bad for the parents who had been through an extremely tense time because of the pressures placed on them. Thirdly, particularly given the weird weapons in the car, it was a considerable source of worry, provoked alarm and could have posed a threat to the wider community if anything had gone wrong.
The Minister must take care to ensure that our resources are properly used. We must ensure that these services are properly resourced. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that, despite our current difficulties, only a Conservative Government can ensure the economic success which will achieve that goal. The Labour party talk about resources, but when it was in power it failed dismally to provide those resources. I welcome the debate which has now started and the forthcoming appearance of the White Paper so that those resources can be properly and efficiently used in our society.
7.40 pm
Mr. William McKelvey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity once again to speak in the debate about the Griffiths report. If my memory serves me right, this is the third recent occasion on which the House has had the opportunity to discuss the report. The previous debates were initiated by the Opposition. I have to register my disappointment, as I did in the two earlier debates, that the Government are dragging their heels in implementing some aspects of this report.
We have not agreed to everything outlined by Griffiths, but I certainly think that we can all agree on our disappointment that there is no real movement by the Government. Some progress has been made, inasmuch as the Government have at last initiated the debate on the Griffiths report. However, it is disappointing that no White Paper is available for this debate. I was naive enough to go to the Vote Office to ask for a copy of the White Paper in case it contained points which I might want to raise in this debate.
I wish to cover two aspects which I have covered before. I do not want to be repetitive, but they are extremely important. Several Members have talked about the growth industry. Certainly in my area of Ayrshire the fastest growth industry involves residential homes. It has slowed

85
down somewhat because the last anticipated increase in fees was not given by the Government. Nevertheless, it has not reached saturation point as yet and the plans show that some people still think that it would be profitable to have a residential home in Ayrshire. The fact that it has a coastline and many large, comfortable, mansion-type houses which are easily adapted to residential homes probably means that it lends itself to such speculation.
A great many of the residential homes are extremely well run, although some of them could, perhaps, be better run. It is for that reason that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have clearly shown that, if we are to proceed evenly with an expansion and extension of residential homes for the elderly in the private and public sectors, we must have an inspectorate that watches both sectors from the constitutional point of view. It would be impossible and hopeless to have an inspectorate for each sector.
When I raised this matter in an Adjournment debate, a Scottish Office Minister assured me that he would respond by letter to the point I raised. Sadly, I am still waiting for his response.
The argument remains one which we should underline. It is not sufficient to leave local authorities to look after or inspect their own establishments. There are weaknesses in doing that, one of which I have outlined previously: people in homes are often afraid to complain because they fear that they may be turned out. If that happened they would not have sufficient finances to go to a private home and would face extreme difficulties.
Another difficulty is the plight of the carer. We have heard pious statements from hon. Members from all parties. I am as guilty as anyone of making pious statements about the role of the carer. However, no Members of Parliament could fail to be moved by the horror stories about the plight of individual carers which are told to them by constituents who come to their surgeries. As a young Member of Parliament 10 years ago, I used to he extremely concerned when I heard of cases and I sometimes thought that they lacked credibility. I could not believe that people were in positions where everything seemed to be so desperately wrong for them. Since then I have been to see some of these people and I have in my constituency an active carer who knows the business inside out. As a result of my experiences and much of the guidance that she has given me, I believe that there is an indisputable case for carers' problems to be scrutinised by the House in this debate.
We have raised with consecutive Ministers the problems faced by carers, particularly those related to their financial means. If an invalid care allowance is paid only to those who deserve to be paid, surely there is a case to be made that invalid care allowance should be a free benefit and not one which is calculated together with other benefits and, therefore, at the end of the day, proves to be worthless.
Elisabeth Reid, who is my mentor in these matters and works for carers, dropped me a note. Her lines are cryptic. She says:
"Willie, you'd better read again the 'Griffiths Report'. It frightens me! It is yet another money-shuffling exercise between Departments."
The Minister said nothing today to dispel that woman's fears. It does appear to be a money-shuffling exercise. The. Minister could have said from the Dispatch Box—perhaps if will be said in the wind-up speech—that however we
86
move about the resources and finances for caring in the community, if we give local authorities the responsibility to look after and link together all the strands of caring in the community, we must protect that money by ring fencing. If not, it will be used for all other sorts of, perhaps good, causes. The money must be protected so that the local authority is accountable to its people. This will show that the Government actually mean what they say and ensure that the money so desperately needed in those areas is actually put up front.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) made a pertinent point about the disabled. It is all right to make fine statements and it is good for the Government if a couple of lines appear in the press, but it does not bear examination if money is not put in with the legislation as it is passed. Certainly, we ask for a guarantee that the money will not only be put up front and be adequate, but will be ring fenced so that it is protected.
The Griffiths report calls for the setting up of a system of registration and inspection of residential homes. It should be underlined that, whether in the public or private sector, the rules and regulations must be the same. One matter that concerns me about the Griffiths report is that it advocates the establishment of a new group of community carers to assist the professional care workers with tasks such as shopping and home help duties. The voluntary sector plays an important part in that. I hope that the Government are not attempting to direct young people into this work—young people who, through no fault of their own, cannot find work, especially in areas such as the one I represent. We do not want some form of home help on the cheap, and we will not tolerate it. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on my suspicions.
The thrust of the Griffiths report is the strengthening of community care and the extension of consumer choice, which we all welcome. Of course we want elderly people to have some choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke eloquently and passionately of the carer—usually the nearest available woman relative—who is forced into looking after that relative by her conscience and by circumstances. I have learnt through talking to such people that when the person to whom they have devoted many years of their life dies, their first feeling is one of overwhelming relief because at last they can enjoy some release from unrelenting drudgery. That feeling is immediately followed by an overwhelming sense of grief, and of guilt for having felt the relief in the first place.
If we are to have a system for looking after people in the community and if the onus continues to be thrust on those who want to keep their relatives at home, we cannot solve that problem by pious remarks in the House. The real solution lies in an established plan backed up with the necessary finance. The Government managed to pull £1 billion out of the air to sort out some of the anomalies of the poll tax in England. Let us hope that they will pull out whatever amount is needed to solve the problems of those who need care and of those who care for them in the community.
7.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I have no doubt that this is one of the most important debates in which it has been my good fortune to be called to speak, because it is about one of our most challenging social issues. As a civilised society, we have an opportunity to put in place a structure that can make a real contribution and a tremendous difference to the quality of life of some of our most vulnerable constituents. We all know that too often there is confusion between all the different agencies and bodies involved, and that confusion allows people to slip quietly through the net.
The Audit Commission's report of 1986 has already been mentioned tonight, but it sums up the problems that existed and still exist in the service—problems of continual waste of scarce resources, with care and support either lacking entirely or being inappropriate to the needs of some of the most disadvantaged people in society as well as to those of the relatives who look after them. I shall return to those relatives later in my speech.
The Health Service already owes a great debt to Sir Roy Griffiths for his earlier managerial reforms, which I had the interesting experience of seeing implemented when I was a member of a health authority. His second major report confirmed that too often good intention is married to a system that is ill-suited to delivering community care and insufficiently accountable. That is no reflection on the professionals who deliver the care: they are saddled with the system. Nor is it to suggest that there has been anything other than a steep increase in the necessary funding. In recent years there has been a real increase of almost 40 per cent. in expenditure by both the NHS on community-based services and by local authorities on personal social services.
I hope that the White Paper will contain a blueprint for excellent management of community care coupled with clear accountability for its delivery on the ground and efficiency in that delivery. I am sure that there will be a role for the Audit Commission in that, too.
We need to be absolutely clear about several key principles and requirements. The first is that community care must be based on a clear response to the needs of the individual and their family. The individual and their family must have a major say in how to meet those needs. There must be clear and open regulation of standards and quality of care, and I look forward to an enhancement of the role of the social services inspectorate. While a national policy sets the framework, it is for one single and local entity to take responsibility for the services available and for their delivery.
Within that framework, we must make a real contribution to improving the ability of those who wish to continue to live in their own homes and environment to do so. That is partly a housing matter, of course. We need continued growth in the development of sheltered homes for the elderly and of bought sheltered housing, such as Bridge Housing in my constituency, which can offer great security to older people without penalising their capital. This is not a trouble-free area, as escalating service charges have shown, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has done much good work in this area by promoting a proper code of practice.
88
However, if we are to enable elderly people to continue to live in their own homes, we must enable more assistance to be given to those who provide the lion's share of community care—friends, family and those who live next door. Too often, the presence of a willing daughter or daughter-in-law is taken for granted instead of being built on and supported as a cornerstone of the needs of the family. We especially need to support and strengthen the ability to cope of the vast army of volunteers who shoulder these responsibilities.
Supporting people in their own homes is not only a policy which runs with the grain of basic human desires: it is also in tune with demographic realities. By the year 2000 there will be over 70 per cent. more people aged 85 and over than there are today. All too frequently in the past, elderly people have been shoved in a home because the local authority lacked the money to provide the help that they needed to continue living in their own homes
If responsibility for all this is to rest with one authority, as it must, the Government are right to reach the conclusion that local authorities are best placed to take on that responsibility. That presents an opportunity and a challenge. We must ensure that the cry of inadequate funding is not allowed as a camouflage for failure; but equally, inadequate resources would merely saddle the local authority with the problem rather than giving them the means with which to effect a solution.
I recently re-read the report to his committee of the director of social services in Nottinghamshire on the Secretary of State's statement to this House on 12 July. His report is constructive and encouraging and, I am sure, bodes well for the future.
If local authorities are to succeed, it is essential that they see themselves principally as enablers, not as providers of local services, because, just as it is a caricature of local authority homes to say that they are bureaucratic and unfeeling places for elderly people, so it is a caricature of private sector homes to see them as motivated by profit and greed. I believe that local authorities will genuinely find their tasks easier to fulfil if they set out whenever possible to be enablers of community care and not to take upon themselves its provision. The safeguards which they and we require rest in effective monitoring and regulation, and I endorse everything said on both sides of the House about the need for a separate national body to carry that out.
There is inevitably concern about the interface between health authorities and social services, the break point of responsibility for someone who is released from full-time medical care. At present, the customer is presented with a kaleidoscope of people who may be responsible for helping them: the GP, the hospital, the social services, community services or the voluntary sector. We must ensure that there are clear lines of responsibility. Naturally an effective partnership between all those groups is essential, but a clear lead must be given.
I hope that the White Paper will properly recognise the role of the GP in determining the right level of community care in conjunction with the local authority. After all, the GP receives the notes when a patient is discharged from hospital. He is involved in the service of health as well as of ill health. We need to enshrine the role of the GP.
The parish priest can make a contribution as the eyes and ears of the community as he goes about his pastoral work. He should see it as part of his role to act as an early-warning system for developing difficulties; many

89
priests already do. I pay tribute to the Bishop of Southwell, who has recognised the role that his priests can play in this important area.
The support services for people who can continue in their own homes include a galaxy of helpers—home helps, meals on wheels, day care services, twilight nursing and incontinence services; but we often hear stories of district nurses ending up having to do the shopping. Do we not need to build up a much simpler "general health" or sitting service by which a low-skilled level of assistance can be supplied? It could be less specialised and provided at much lower cost but could give the extra specific support that is needed by the client.
I have talked mainly about the care of the elderly, but I should like to end by speaking about the care of the mentally ill. Some of the speeches in the debate have demonstrated a misunderstanding of our policy of closing some of the dreadful old asylums and placing people back in the community. All too often there is genuine public misunderstanding about that matter. Some people believe that community care is no care at all and is a cheap option, but nothing could be further from the truth.
In saying that, I draw on the experience of the health authority in Nottingham which looks after many of my constituents. It is closing some of the appalling Victorian asylums. The policy is working extremely well, precisely because the funding is matched to the speed at which the asylums are being emptied. The policy is not a cheap option. I continually follow up cases where it looks as though someone has fallen through the net. I regularly discover, as the authority confirms again and again, that it has lost track of none of the people who moved into the community.
What some hon. Members have been describing is the failure of the working of the policy but not failure of the policy itself. That is extremely important. Twelve people who were in Saxondale have gone to Broomhill house in Gedling village in my constituency. It is well staffed and people have been given what they never had in the asylums —a much better quality of life. There is day care support nearby and the policy is working extremely well. Hon. Members should go to see some of these old asylums. If they do, they will realise that people have a much better quality of life outside if they are properly supervised and looked after.
I am not, of course, being disparaging in any way about the service provided by the people who work in the old asylums. I spent half a day in an asylum in my constituency and I have no doubt that many of the people who work there are saints who must deal every day with appallingly difficult human problems. The money obtained from selling such dreadful places will provide the health care that my constituents want in the next decade and into the next century. The release of those assets will make possible far better, modern, up-to-date and brand new health facilities.
I welcome the Government's response to Griffiths and I welcome this important debate. I look forward with keen interest to the White Paper.
8.2 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am privileged to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and should like to take up two of the points that he made. I am not convinced by his deduction about policy and systems.
90
In audits we discover that it is the systems that are important, not the working of them. I am not sure that the policy has always been right. I confirm the hon. Gentleman's view about the use of parish ministers. However, I regret to say that regularly the professionals in the field look askance at the clergyman who appears to interfere in the care of their patients or clients.
I wish to underscore the hon. Gentleman's point about the place of the doctor. In the suggestions before us the doctor is expected to communicate with the social services about his patients who require back-up help. He is not required to do so, but it is important to place a requirement upon the doctor because doctors are regularly out of touch even with what is available from the social services.
I was fascinated by the comment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who said that he had taken part in three debates on the Griffiths report. Many hon. Members also comment on the fact that we have still not seen a White Paper. I was reminded of the old cinema serials which have been replaced by the modern soap operas. We watched them and were left in suspense, but the next part of the serial left us wondering why we bothered to turn on at all. I trust that when we receive the White Paper there will be no sense of disillusionment but that the input from the debates will have sharpened the Government's perspective. The Government have heard hon. Members from all parts of the House expressing deep concern and raising specific issues.
The Minister spoke about being in Coventry during the recent social services conference. I am sure that, like me, he discovered there a deep concern about the avalanche of legislation that is coming forth and about the lack of facilities and training. The Children Bill will come on line and we will have a Bill based on Griffiths. There is a deep feeling, especially among social service workers, that they are not adequately prepared to meet such change at such a rate. Specific attention should be given to the training and preparation of workers in the field.
The pressure of time makes it impossible to cover everything but I suggest that the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation of 1988 would go a long way towards meeting a great many needs. I call into question the Government's intention about the implementation of the various sections. For example, at a recent meeting of the all-party disablement group, the Minister with responsibility for social services and the disabled was committed to the concept of advocacy. Will the Government fully examine the implications of sections 1, 2 and 3 as a means of putting that concept into practice? How do they propose to make the services fully accountable to disabled people? How do they propose to consult disabled people about their community care needs? Will the Department fully examine those three sections as a means of ensuring user accountability?
At that meeting, it appeared that section 7, which deals with people's discharge from hospital was to be the next priority for implementation. However, the Secretary of State later contradicted that, because in parliamentary answers the Government have said that they are still in discussions with local authority associations on section 7. Is there a time limit on those discussions about the. implementing of the sections? If they were implemented,

91
we would be on the road to providing the framework of legislation that is required to provide care in the community.
We must be careful when talking about resources. Most areas appeared satisfied to a degree, but when one probes one discovers problems. One area is convinced that it has a fine spectrum, and has its workers out in the field. However, it sees difficulties because of the soaring cost of land and property.
When I challenged the need for an inspectorate, especially in Northern Ireland, I had a telephone call from a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) who asked me to visit his home. It was a small residential home with six people and it was ideal. It was not a large mansion-type institution but a home. That man said to me, "I am not by any means wealthy, but I am comfortable and I take £140 a week from the residents."
We must be careful about setting national standards for finance which will raise the overall cost and not meet the real needs of the people. We must examine more carefully the place and role of an inspectorate for national standards of care so that local authorities or whoever is charged with this will not just minimise it to suit its own position. However, if we consulted people, particularly the carers and those requiring care, we would discover that they would benefit by more personalised care in their own homes rather than being in a home or an institution.
Has enough attention been given, difficult though it might be to implement, to giving respite care not in an institution but in the residence of the person in need? All of us know that, especially as people get older, they can be disoriented if taken out of their familiar surroundings. It would be better for them to have respite care in their homes. In that context, I pay tribute to the work of bodies such as Extra Care, which have gone a long way to providing personal attention for those who desperately require it.
How will the Government's stated intention of shifting the financial aspects of community care in nursing and residential homes from the social security budget to the health budget work? What will be the effect on residents and nurses in private homes? In that context, I support the cry for ring fencing. We were recently informed of a local authority that used the funds that it had been given to implement an aspect of the Griffiths report to pay the wages of the road menders. I do not doubt that the roads might need mending, and that those involved might need payment, but that was not a proper use of the funds.
8.11 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome the debate. I am sorry that Labour Members were hoping to have the White Paper before it, because I see it as proof of a listening Government who want to hear, on the first day back,. what we would like to see in the White Paper. This is an excellent opportunity for us to tell the Government what we want to see in it.
I agree with all my colleagues who have said that we need substantially more resources. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister not to be shy, and to ask the Treasury for more money, because more money will be needed. The issue is how that money should be used, and there are
92
differences about that between the Government and the Opposition. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) implied that if there were a Labour Government and all local authorities were Labour, everything would be simple and fine, but we know that if we go down that road we shall have the IMF cuts. We should remember the remark attributed to a former head of the DHSS: "If you are not confused about community care, it shows that you are not thinking clearly."
To understand why that is so, one should read the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who went to the heart of the matter when he said that the essential ingredient is love by carers. We have over 1 million unpaid carers, two thirds of whom have no help at all, and whose care could be valued at upwards of £10 billion if it were paid for. They are dealing with a vast bureaucracy of social service workers —200,000 of them—who are mostly paid to do a job from nine to five and whose motives, by definition, are different from those of the unpaid carers who are doing this work through love. Here we have the essence of the conflict and of the Government's difficulty in seeing that the extra money that is desperately needed is channelled to help carers and the disabled rather than to swell this vast army of workers.
I shall illustrate the point with two examples that have recently come to my attention. Today I received a letter dated 9 October from the Association of Directors of Social Services, briefing hon. Members on today's debate. The letter says about assessment:
"The way in which individual consumers are assessed for community care services is crucial. We seek clarification on the statutory requirements being placed on local authorities … It is important, for example to know whether a consumer who has been assessed as requiring certain services has a legal entitlement to expect all those services within a given timescale. If so, how will the funding be guaranteed? If not, what right of appeal should exist?"
That is how the bureaucracy looks on the responsibilities placed on it by statute.
Let us compare that with the remarks made by Mrs. Pat Nelson at a Barnardo's conference held in Liverpool a few weeks ago, which was attended by Princess Diana. Mrs. Nelson is the mother of six, three natural children and three adopted Down's children. She said that the children had taught her what is really important in life:
"Courage, honesty, truth, love and relationships. They don't ask 'What is your job? How much do you earn? What sort of car do you drive?' They ask 'Can I trust you? Do you love me? Will you always be there for me?"
That can be compared with the example from the Association of Directors of Social Services. There is a complete difference in approach and the Government's difficulty is in seeing that the extra resources that are needed go where they are needed and not just into the bureaucracy.
I am a supporter of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which is a great credit to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). That Act will not go away, and it is disappointing that the Government have not given it a better response. However, I see the difficulty, because the Act is oriented on local authorities. This is where we must pin down the local authorities' responsibilities. We must ring-fence the local authorities—although not by money because it is a mistake to think that if local authorities are given more money, that means more care—so that we can give them the extra responsibilities that are called for in the

93
1986 Act without leaving them with responsibility for additional provision. The money should be directed more to voluntary groups such as Crossroads.
More money is needed. My hon. Friend the Minister should not be shy. He should tell the Treasury that £10 billion is needed. It will not be needed straight away, because there will have to be time to pin down local authorities to what they should be doing rather than what they are pretending to be doing. Time is needed to build up voluntary groups such as Crossroads. I am pleased that Crossroads now has agreement to start a scheme in Bolton because it provides care for 12,000 people and has another 7,000 on its waiting lists. There are tens of thousands more in areas where it does not have schemes. Such groups should be built up and that is where the money should go.
I am a voluntary unpaid carer and chairman of the newly formed Conservative Disability Group. I hope that the White Paper will allow more money and more say for the voluntary groups and, immediately, more respite care for the carers.
8.17 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: It is clear from the debate that, although the Government have been in power for 10 years, they have yet to develop a coherent strategy in their policy on community care, particularly in relation to the elderly. In everything that they do, the Government have only one policy—economic. That is the kernel of tonight's debate. What has been said tonight, and what has been said before in the Chamber about community care, shows that the Government see their central challenge as how to free the market, in domiciliary as well as residential care, and how to reduce the huge £1 billion per annum Exchequer grant going to private residential care.
I shall break the consensus that we have had so far and comment on a fundamental question that has not yet been touched on. It is whether the market is an effective mechanism to determine the nature and quality of care for vulnerable and dependent people. That question must be addressed in the context of the way in which the Government intend to respond to the Griffiths' report. No one doubts that the private sector has played a part in the provision of care, and will continue to do so under every Government. Is it appropriate that the bulk of care provision should be left to the private sector, with the market determining the extent, the nature and, especially, the models of care that are being provided? I do not think it is.
A number of problems stem from the market approach and I shall mention some of them. First, it is an unplanned approach. We have heard much about the way in which services have or have not developed over the past 10 years, but I am concerned especially about the clear bias towards institutional care, with that being the easiest area for the market to develop.
The Government have landed themselves with a huge albatross around their neck, that of institutional care. They have allowed that sector to develop because they have institutional tunnel vision. They should be aware of the huge range of options that is available. Residential care, however, is the easiest option when one has in mind a business proposition.
Business expansion means institutional expansion. We increasingly see intimate private homes being taken over and expanded so that they become large institutions.
94
During the summer recess I had a dialogue with the developers of a new home in the Wakefield area, which will provide 100 beds. When I was starting in social work 20 years ago, I remember that from Government level efforts were made to establish a policy that homes should be built with no more than 35 beds. It is unfortunate that we seem to be returning to the huge impersonal institution. The owner of the home in the Wakefield area told me by letter that a home that provided 100 beds provided economies of scale. In other words, the owners can make more money if they pack in more people. That worries me.
Leaving care to the market means insecurity in many instances for those who need to be in private homes. The inability to meet fees has been mentioned several times by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we are all aware that many of our constituents are having to top up and subsidise within their families because income support is inadequate. I shall introduce tomorrow a ten-minute Bill designed to give people security when they are in homes. That form of security is not provided now.
With the development of the private sector, we talk about community care, and the Minister has talked about putting money into that form of care. He has spoken of a hundredfold increase in provision, but he was referring to institutional care. The community care that he is talking about often means that people have to move into communities that are many miles from where they have lived hitherto. That is not community care.
The Minister told us that he seeks the advice of the House on what should be included in the White Paper, but the Government have had more than 10 years to develop a policy. Instead of developing one, they have been content to sit back and allow to develop what can be described only as a shambles of a policy of community care. Any action that the Government have proposed has been anchored to a free market ideology that prevents rather than facilitates the development of a wide range o f provision to meet the varying needs of the elderly.
I believe that the selfishness and greed engendered by 10 years of Conservative Government are rapidly coming to an end. We have on the horizon the likely election of a. radically different Government with a radically different philosophy, who will be seeking to develop markedly different policies from those which are now available under a Government tied to the market.
Central to the strategy of a Labour Government will be a major policy commitment that those who wish to remain in their own homes should be enabled to do so, even if that means enormous expense to support them and to support the carers who give up so much of their lives to ensure that others can remain in their own homes. In taking that course, carers face great difficulties. With such a policy, there will have to be the development of radically new models of care that do not stem from the institutional framework. We have been stuck with the institution because of the hangover of the Poor Law. We still have the mentality that prevailed those many years ago. We must bring it to an end and move in the direction that has been taken by many other countries. It has been decided elsewhere that there should be a move away from the idea that people should end their lives in an institution.
I look forward to the development of elderly person support units, which makes intensive efforts to ensure that the elderly remain, with support, in the community. The Labour party is advocating flexible home-care provision. It should be possible, if necessary, to support someone

95
intensively 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year. That is reasonable and the option should be available if people prefer it.
Housing provision has been neglected as a result of the market being left to determine care. Many elderly people do not have the resources to purchase. This means that they cannot enter the private market and the private market has not developed strategies to care for those who are highly dependent. We must develop sheltered housing that enables those who are extremely dependent to be looked after in their own homes. They should be able to remain in their own environment. They should not have to be moved into impersonal institutionalised care. That must be a central plank of the policy commitment of the next Labour Government.
Above all, we need vision and commitment, but we also need planning. Thought must be given to the future. We cannot leave issues as serious as those that we are discussing to the whims of the profit and loss account, the market, or the speculator, but that is precisely what the Government have done with the support of £1 billion of public money each year.
We have had 10 years of bankrupt Tory ideology. That is the only way to describe the experience. Members of this place are only too well aware of the tragic cases with which they are confronted in their surgeries. My colleagues and I meet people who are facing appalling consequences. I look forward to the next few years. I believe that we shall see the election of a different Government who have a different strategy and philosophy from those which we have seen pursued by the present Administration. The next Labour Government will alter radically the provision that is made for the elderly and many other groups who are currently grossly neglected by the present Government.
8.27 pm
Mr. Michael Irvine: Two months ago in Ipswich, reductions were implemented in the amount of home help available for the elderly and disabled people. It was not that overall expenditure on the home help services was being cut; the problem was that the rapidly increasing demand for home help was putting severe pressure on even an increased budget. Part of the pressure was due to demographic reasons. We have seen an increase in the number of people living in Suffolk aged 75 years and over of nearly 60 per cent. during the past two years. That increase is set to continue.
An even more significant source of pressure stemmed from the expansion of home help services to provide personal care for the seriously disabled and for those recovering following hospital operations. As the National Health Service has become more efficient, as more operations are performed, and as people are discharged at an earlier stage following operations, there follows a massive increase in the burden on the home help services.
Home help that consists of shopping and cleaning may involve no more than three or four hours a week, but home help that involves intensive personal care of someone who has returned at an early stage after a hospital operation often involves five or 10 times that number of hours. That is a significant factor to be considered in the face of the increasing burden that is being placed on home help services.
96
The pressures are not set to diminish. Indeed, they are set to intensify. It is clear to me that significantly increased financial resources will be required to meet the pressures. I was glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State acknowledge that fact in his opening speech. I was glad also to hear that he has not closed his mind altogether to the ring fencing of the contribution from central Government. It is certainly the strongly held view of the Suffolk county council chairman of social services that ring fencing is a necessary and important safeguard.
However, increased resources and ring fencing by themselves will not be enough—every bit as important will be the effective and efficient administration of community care. Voluntary organisations make a magnificent contribution, but there is always the risk of lack of co-ordination with other groups and agencies. There is a need for permanent, specialist, high-quality administrative support to guide the voluntary groups and to make the maximum of their considerable efforts. We need co-ordination, accountability and clear lines of respon-sibility, and I am glad that the Government have accepted the recommendations of Sir Roy Griffiths.
It is important to recognise that a great deal more staff will be required to meet the additional demands and pressures of the next decade. I agree with paragraph 35 of Sir Roy's letter that accompanied his report, which said that there was a risk of over-elaboration, both of the professional input and of the amount of training required for such staff. As Sir Roy pointed out, many of the needs of the elderly and the disabled are for more practical help such as shopping, cooking, cleaning, and so on. It would be a waste of professional qualifications to overtrain people for that job. However, that does not mean that there should not be the most careful selection of those called upon to work as home helps.
The elderly, the disabled and the mentally infirm are vulnerable, and never more so than in respect of those who have access to their homes. The opportunities for theft, manipulation and the like are only too obvious, so those who help them in their homes must, above all, be honest, tactful, responsible and sympathetic. I am glad to say that, on the whole, standards are high, but there may be pressures on those standards in the coming decade because the very demography that is placing increasing strains on home help and other social services will be accompanied by trends in demography and social factors that will reduce the number of people available to carry out those services. There is a risk that the standards of honesty, tact, responsibility and sympathy might slip, and it is important that that is not allowed to happen.
I wish to touch on a theme mentioned by many hon. Members, which is the role of the carer at home. Family care and support is often the most effective and appreciated care of all. It is almost certainly the cheapest. In calling for improved and more plentiful community care, we must never forget the risk that when the state or a local authority takes responsibility, it might dull the sense of duty that every family should feel towards its elderly or less fortunate members. The state and the local authority can and should give support to those family carers, who bear a very heavy burden indeed and need respite and help. I agree with the wishes expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that, when the White Paper is published, proper account will be taken of that very important factor.
8.34 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: In the short time available, I shall restrict my remarks to the issue of the mentally ill. I wish to draw attention to a statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland:
"I propose to maintain the current arrangements which have generally worked well for sharing responsibility for services to the mentally ill between health and social work authorities."—[Official Report, 12 July 1989, Vol. 156, c. 534.]
I simply do not understand where the Secretary of State gets his information from or how he can reach such a conclusion. The relationship between the social work and the health authorities in Scotland is quite disgraceful. For a long time I was involved with Strathclyde regional council and the linking with several health boards. Everyone in the social work authority saw as one of the areas of shame the total failure to develop adequate relationships with the health boards.
Scotland has twice as many in-patients in mental hospitals as the remainder of the United Kingdom. Throughout the whole of Scotland during 1987 only one local authority had a day centre for the mentally ill. There is no comprehension of the numbers of old people who are sent to prison; Scotland is only just beginning to count them. Scotland only received support financing in 1980, four years later than England and Wales. It was only in 1985 that support and joint financing were introduced to put Scotland on an equal footing with the remainder of the United Kingdom—10 wasted years after it had been introduced in England and Wales.
I regret to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland, unlike the Secretary of State for Wales, has failed to give any lead in that area. Once again, Scotland lags behind Wales, which has had a co-ordinated strategy for the mentally handicapped for the past 10 years and has now introduced a co-ordinated strategy for mental illness. Scotland has nothing like that. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can claim that the relationship between the social work and the health services is working well. In 1979–80, the very excellent report "Scottish Health Authorities Priorities for the Eighties"—SHAPE—iden-tified as category A priorities care of the elderly, the mentally ill and handicapped, physically handicapped and prevention and community nursing—all issues in the community care area.
Despite those category A priorities, at the end of that decade the proportion of expenditure on areas such as the mentally ill and handicapped had fallen—yet the Secretary of State says that it works well. The right hon. Gentleman played his part in producing the "Working for Patients" document, which achieved something quite remarkable —in its 100 pages it failed to mention mental illness. It takes a great deal of effort to write 100 pages on health and fail to mention mental illness. The numbers of the mentally ill are awesome—1 million people a year need some form of psychiatric care, and one person in eight will spend some time as an in-patient during his lifetime.
The White Paper is nothing but a cost-cutting exercise because it just deals with areas where a great deal of money is spent, such as acute care and drugs, and questions how that expenditure can be reduced. It does not address the Cinderella services such as mental illness and care of the elderly.
The White Paper is obsessed with increasing the number of a doctor's patients. I am reminded of a visit that I made during the recess to a hospital in my area and the
98
comments made there by mental health patients. One of them wrote to me saying that five years ago she found that getting a general practitioner to take her on to his list was a problem. That person said that she had since gathered information from other patients, one of whom was told, "I am not taking you. You will call me out at night." Another had to try three doctors, each of whom turned her down, before the fourth took her on his list. The letter went on:
"My own case was dramatic as a local doctor's receptionist accepted me and made an appointment for the end of the week. My hospital registrar then wrote to the GP telling him my history and on the Thursday I had a recorded delivery letter stating that a mistake had been made and the GP could not take me on. The appointment was therefore cancelled."
That was before the "Working for Patients" document. I cannot see how we can have an adequate service that just needs smoothing.
We should point out to the rest of the United Kingdom that we had a Minister who was responsible for community care. The responsibility for health and social work was shared by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). However, he has now been given other duties saving endangered species.
We must stop the crass target-setting that is going on. Gartnavel hospital has 165 patients in long-term care. The target is for that to reach 19 in five years and many have already been discharged. That leads to the sort of thing that happened to one of my constituents. She had a brother who had been in a mental hospital for 37 years and she had been approached by medical staff who asked what she intended to do to provide a home for him. Such a thought was horrifying to the brother and the sister.
We must also change many of our stingy attitudes to the voluntary organisations. It is offensive to expect voluntary organisations to raise money which is then matched pound for pound. The backbone of many of those voluntary organisations is exactly those carers about whom many golden words have been spoken today. Lord McCluskey says:
"If the Navy needs three new frigates, we don't tell the Admiral of the fleet to run a charity bazaar in order to match pound for pound the monies to be made available from the taxpayer. In the field of community care those, particularly the volunteers, who seek to provide services are faced with just such requests. It is depressing for those who want to offer their skills to have to devote so much of their time to trying to raise money from charities and to jump through bureaucratic hoops."
Such an attitude must be dropped.
One point that has not yet received adequate attention relates to the need to set up patients councils for the mentally ill and to ask the patients what they think is needed. The professions say that they own people. Whether they are social workers or doctors, they say, "A bit of me is what these people need." Patients councils would put more emphasis on, for example, the need for asylum, for there to be some place to which they could escape; on the need for work opportunities; on the need for housing opportunities and on the need for crisis facilities and support, particularly at weekends. Such issues would loom much larger than they have so far, as would the need to support self-help groups.
We are glad to have had this debate. The test is now there for the Government. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have had 30 years of pious words. They must come to an end. As Griffiths said, the one thing that we cannot do is nothing. We have done nothing for far too long.
8.44 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has just re-entered the Chamber. I have attempted to educate him before but I will try to do so again because he is an hon. Member with much to offer if he learns a few lessons.
The important thing for the hon. Gentleman to understand is that Kent may appear still lower in the league table of home helps over the coming year because it has changed the whole nature of the service that it offers. It has preferred to go for home care service which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) pointed out, is a different kind of service and includes such assessments as whether somebody needs help to get out of bed or to get back into bed and to be cared for in a variety of different ways. That intensification of service is proving a great deal more useful and valuable than simply an hour or two from a home help. Kent will remain unashamed of its appearance among the home help statistics.
It is worth remembering that we should have a mixed economy in care. That is the other important element. I intervened earlier to say that it is a serious mistake for people who have been in the habit of choosing how to dispose of their resources throughout their lives and who have had the opportunity and good fortune to do so, suddenly to arrive at a stage in their development where they become the passive pawn of some institution, however well meaning.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) said, the picture of community care and the discharging of people, particularly from hospitals for the mentally handicapped, is far too gloomy. When a mental handicap hospital in my constituency was half empty, its administrators kindly thought that it would be fun for those already discharged into the community to visit their friends who were still there. They took them in a bus to the hospital but only one patient was prepared to get out of the bus because they were so terrified that they would have to stay, despite that being a well-run mental handicap institution. Where community care works well, it is vastly to be preferred to big institutions.
I congratulate the Government on the appointment of Sir Roy Griffiths. It is a fine example of the way in which private enterprise can assist the public sector. His contribution to the debate has been much valued on both sides of the House. He took a far more realistic view about the amount of resources available. I share with every other hon. Member who has spoken the belief that we need more resources for community care. We need them not only because of the demographic profile but to provide a better deal for carers, more respite care and for all the other reasons that have been given. However, if we were to add up the cost of all the demands that have been made in the Chamber, either explicitly or implicitly, we would arrive at a figure so unrealistically high that it would be a cruel deception to everyone to imagine that such a sum could be made available. When Sir Roy Griffiths said that he was concerned about the proper expenditure of whatever sum was available he was speaking realistically.
There is a clear need for a much better assessment of clients and potential clients. For example, clear evidence is mounting that a substantial number of confused elderly are confused because their bodies are in a state of
100
imbalance due to drugs. When people lose a spouse they can become very stressed and unable to sleep well. The doctor then gives them tranquilisers and they may then develop some sort of headache which the doctor treats with another drug, and so the spiral goes on. It has been shown that if a proper assessment of such confused elderly people is carried out and they are gradually restored to a proper balance, they are frequently able to live in their own homes without being a burden on the community care services.
It is vital that we build on the strengths of all the professions. People have professional pride and attach-ment and, just as some doctors are reluctant to see their patients handed over to social services departments, so teachers of children with special needs have a similar anxiety. A great deal of training and careful joint work will be needed to obtain an effective system of working together. Teachers, speech therapists and the professions allied to medicine must be brought into the system. One of the reasons why the parliamentary panel for personal and social services extended an invitation to the professions allied to medicine to meet it and the support group—the four professional social work associations—is that suddenly those professions find themselves with a third major purchaser of their skills. It is important for them to start making links.
It is vital that we give the client or patient a real choice. My hon. Friend the Minister should remember the demands that we made earlier for there to be opportunities for advocacy for those not able to choose for themselves from the varied or unvaried, menu, presented to them by the social services departments. I am cautious about having "professional" advocates because there is a danger that as they become more experienced they may start to hype up the demands of their client to what will eventually become a totally unrealistic proposition. We need to think about that.
One issue that is fundamentally important but which will not feature in the White Paper is housing design. How realistic is it to assume that we will be able to keep in their own homes the 6 million old-age pensioners whom we expect to have by the year 2000 if the homes in which they are expected to be kept are structurally unfit to shelter them? At a recent seminar that I ran with the Helen Hamlyn Foundation, which looks after frail elderly people, a shopping list of desirable features for a home for the frail elderly was put forward. If such requirements were included in a house that cost about £44,000 to build, the total cost of including them new would be about £8,000, or 16 per cent. of the total. If they were to be included later, the cost would rise to about 55 per cent. of the total. Every year we add to our housing stock more and more new build which cannot possibly accommodate a wheelchair or anybody not totally fit.
We have mentioned sheltered housing, which is valuable. There are about 44,000 units in the private sector and a similar number in the public sector. However, sheltered housing, no matter how desirable, often creates a ghetto; an area in which people meet only others like themselves. What sort of choice is that? We have to reintroduce to our new building the requirements that will enable us to have flexibility in the housing stock. If we do not do that, community care will become a farce.
My hon. Friend the Minister should take the issue seriously. We may have to go back to considering some

101
sort of space requirements on new build housing and finding a way of paying for it that does not necessarily fall on the shoulders of the first-time buyer.
I support the idea of a national inspection. It is unrealistic to expect local authorities to inspect themselves and the private sector well enough without some central guidance. I hope that we can have a central inspection.
8.55 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I must pick up a point that was made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). If I do not, my wife will certainly not forgive me because she is a social worker and she will not be amused when I go home tonight and tell her that she works in a vast bureaucracy on a nine-to-five basis. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case for many social workers, including my wife. They are often called out at unearthly hours in the early morning, in order to take children into care. The hon. Gentleman should revise what he said and thinks about social workers. He will not be on my wife's Christmas card list this year.
I am not surprised that it has taken so long for us to reach this point in consideration of the Griffiths report, for the simple reason that Griffiths had at the centre of his recommendations the role of the local authority. That must have been a major stumbling block for the Government. I would dearly love to have seen the Prime Minister's face when the report was thumped down on her desk by some quivering civil servant or Minister who said, "Do you know what he has done? He has said that we have to give a central role to local authorities." The Prime Minister's hatred of all local authorities is well known in the House. Griffiths showed good sense and I congratulate those Conservative Members who were able to convince the Prime Minister, despite her well-known and practised prejudices, that she and the Government should go along with a number of the recommendations made by Griffiths, particularly with regard to the role of the local authority.
In the few minutes that I have left I wish to mention the hidden needs of care in the community. Hon. Members know from experience in their surgeries that many needs are hidden because few services exist to meet them. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said that two thirds of live-in carers receive no help from any of the services that could bring them some relief. They may be caring on a 24 hour-a-day basis for dependent relatives. That becomes a form of house arrest if they receive no support. In areas such as the London borough of Newham in my constituency, elderly people from black and other ethnic minority communities find the existing statutory services inappropriate and inaccessible.
The trouble is that we have no estimates of the real levels of need for care in our communities. Last week I went to look at the Newham Crossroads care attendance scheme, which is based in Forest Gate in my constituency. We discussed some of the problems in the knowledge that today's debate was to take place. Just 10 care attendants were present. They are paid by the Crossroads charity and receive support from the local council, as do most of the Crossroads schemes; payment, however, is limited to the rate for a 260-hour week. They told me that in the previous week they had already exceeded that, and were eating into the funds that they receive from jumble sales and other voluntary activities.
102
The care attendants relieve carers, sometimes for only a few hours a week, sometimes for a day a week. That is much appreciated, but they tell me that it is only the tip of the iceberg. The House, and the Government in particular, must address the problem of all the people who we know desperately need relief from caring for dependent relatives or friends. Most carers, I was told, are in the 55-to70 age range.
I asked each of the 10 care attendants to give instances of people whom they were currently looking after. Time will allow me to mention only three. A case that I found particularly pathetic was that of a mother who was looking after her daughter. That sounds perfectly reasonable; however, the daughter is 45 and the mother 76, and in no fit state to look after her daughter. She has the additional worry of what will happen to her daughter on her death —which cannot be far off, given the amount of work that she must put in.
Others had different tales of personal tragedy to tell, concerning younger people. A 29-year-old single woman is looking after both parents. Where has her personal life gone? Where is her chance of a future? Her sense of responsibility prevents her from going out, meeting others of her own age and forming her own relationships. Her life has been blighted. There is also the male equivalent: a single man of 35 is looking after his mother, and has problems in trying to lead his own life outside. I was told that the budget allowed no money for training.
This is what I found most disgraceful of all—listening to what was said by people whose commitment was clear although many looked as if they needed a bit of care and attention themselves. It is not surprising that there is a great deal of poverty in that part of London; but there is also a great deal of readiness to help out—and it is often those who can afford to give least who give most when asked to put their hands into their pockets or purses for charity.
Those care attendants receive the magnificent sum of £3·75 an hour for bringing relief to carers throughout the London borough of Newham, and two weeks' money is kept in hand. They do not receive as much as home helps or district nurses, but that is all that the charity says that it can afford. One young care attendant has to pay £70 a week for a bedsit in Newham: that is the going rate in the private sector.
None of the matters that we are discussing can be entirely divorced from others over which the Government have influence. It is no good talking about having more care attendants, and about how much they should be paid, if a Bill going through Parliament will force up the cost of private accommodation in boroughs such as Newham and make it even more difficult for people to come forward to perform such vital functions.
Most people who have relations in need of care are compassionate and concerned, and what they do not want from the House are pious platitudes and expressions of hope for the future. They want resources. They want a commitment. They want the Government to say, "We believe in what you are doing, and we will back it up with hard resources." I hope that, when the White Paper is published, it will contain strong recommendations to back up the pious sentiments that we have heard from Conservative Members tonight.
9.3 pm
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in what has been a very constructive debate, with a remarkable degree of consensus from all corners of the House. I should like to dissociate myself from the remarks made a few moments ago about sheltered accommodation, which I found entirely contrary to my experience; but I have no time to dwell on that.
Some steps proposed by the Government have broad acclaim—for example, the fact that there is to be an identifiable point of access, including a named person, that there is to be a unified budget and that some of the restrictions on financial planning have been removed—and there is general welcome for at least some move towards an assessment system.
But that does not go far enough in terms of a national commitment to properly established national principles which are adequately funded. It does not go far enough in giving rights to people who need community care and in making the obligations statutory. Nor does it pay enough attention to the way in which what is proposed will bite.
In that connection, I suggest that something along the lines of the statements that are given to children with special needs should be given to people in need of community care. The statement, which should be multidisciplinary, should enable resources to be commanded, for without resources no proposal is worth the paper on which it is written. There must be a national level and quality of service, not least to ensure that the public money that we devote to this sphere is properly used.
I welcome the commitment to the concept of compulsory assessment and treatment of patients suffering from mental disorder in hospital, but I, too, call for some compulsory treatment for those who are still in the community and, like other hon. Members, I am thinking particularly of schizophrenics.
Parents of schizophrenic young people in my constituency are desperate to know what to do, because once those concerned are out of hospital and have decided to stop taking the medication, their situation becomes intolerable. Those who most want to care for them find it impossible to do so. In other words, they are not controllable by those nearest and dearest.
In taking an overview of the policies and proposals that we are discussing, I feel that the lack of definition of needs and rights is accompanied by what amount to no more than vague promises about the funding of what is proposed.
Government figures suggest that as many as 35,000 previously institutionalised patients have been released into the community in the last decade. An optimistic estimate is that no more than 9,000 of them have been offered full-time residential places in their own communities. That leaves 26,000 vulnerable people dependent on domiciliary care or community support. Some of those have fallen through the net and are receiving no help whatever. Some of those undoubtedly contribute to the number with whom the social services have lost touch and who form some of the homeless, whose plight we have discussed in the debate.
We must know on what basis the transfer of resources to local authorities will be based. The levels transferred
104
must not perpetuate the existing shortfalls, and it is agreed that considerable shortfalls exist. We have little or no knowledge on a national basis about the adequacy of current resources. Indeed, it is generally believed that there is a major shortfall, particularly in relation to carers.
Much has been said about carers, and I endorse everything that has been said. Many of those carers are children, and that fact must be taken on board. I reiterate what has been said about the cost implications of caring for people at home rather than in a home. The National Care Homes Association estimates that to look after people in a residential home on a 24 hours a day basis cost 84p an hour, whereas to look after somebody in their own home, providing a service on the basis of only 14 hours a week, costs £19·44 an hour. So, even allowing for some possible exaggeration of the figures, the differences are enormous. When we call for care at home rather than in homes, we must be clear about what we are talking. If we do not appreciate the facts, carers will continue to foot the bill for having their charges at home rather than in one.
The likely shortfall must be set in the context of what the Royal College of Nursing has described as
"the lack of a defined and exclusively dedicated budget for community care".
Today we have talked about ring fencing and I add my voice to the many who have asked for such ring fencing to ensure that the right amount of money is allocated to the right places.
The aging population suggests that we will be faced with an increasingly vulnerable group who will lean heavily on community care. That dependency will be coupled with a significant decline in the number of young people able to provide that care.
It is important to consider the bottom line regarding responsibility for the proposals. At the moment there is some input from the health authorities and, primarily, from the local authorities. The added dimension is the local hospitals, including mental care hospitals, which may be self-governing. When boundaries do not coincide and when it is unclear where funding will come from, it will be important to discover who will make the decisions. That must be resolved if the proposals are to be dovetailed into the National Health Service Bill, which we expect imminently. There could be an automatic temptation for a health authority to discharge someone from hospital and for the local authority to feel itself unable or unwilling to pick up the financial burden, which will then be in its court.
To make things work, we need national standards and national funding. Without that commitment, we shall, in common with so many before us, pay only lip service to community service.
9.11 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: I want to discuss children and adults with learning difficulties. I have always found the term "mental handicap" a negative and ugly one. It describes many people who live in the community or who are subject to institutional care. The term does not adequately describe either the nature of their disability or the contribution that they can make to society. Because of the ugliness of the term, many people in the community switch off immediately when others discuss with them the concept of involving people with disabilities and learning difficulties in the wider community.
This morning I entered the House with a great deal of trepidation because as I went up the stairs of the

105
underground I was met by a phalanx of junior doctors and nurses wearing bandanas who were asking for a contribution towards the funding of the London hospitals. A few hours later, however, for the first time in 10 years, I sensed some hope because, from both sides of the House, there is a common approach and a recognition of the role of the public sector, the local authorities and the primary services in the development of care in the community.
It has taken 10 long, hard years for that lesson to sink in and perhaps that is why the Government have taken so long to publish a White Paper in response to the Griffiths report. It was never the Government's intention that the Griffiths report would be written in the fashion that it was. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said —I am tempted to call him my hon. Friend, but that would get him into a great deal of trouble—Griffiths was driven to his conclusions by the weight of evidence, which has been shown today. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the quality of the debate, the genuine compassion and, most important, the deep understanding felt by hon. Members about what must be done in relation to the development of community care policy through to the turn of the century and beyond.
Many of us who have spent a lifetime working with people with learning difficulties have attempted to provide care patterns as a result of discussions with the families of those involved and with local authorities. We have attempted to produce a care pattern that provides choice for disabled people, whether they suffer from a physical disability or from severe learning difficulties. That pattern of care and the development of choice must underpin the Government's commitment to providing resources. We cannot have a national framework recognising the role of local authorities if, in the final analysis, we do not provide the resources to develop that expectation. I wish to discuss that expectation.
In the pattern of institutional care and care in the community, there are some essential choices that must not be made by us. We must provide the resources for disabled people to make those choices. In all our debates in the past decade we have failed to recognise that those individuals have the right to choice, the right to family life, the right to develop friendships inside institutions and to maintain those friendships when they leave the institutions, the right to proper housing and to care within housing in the community, and the right to education, training and employment.
Local authorities have a central and pivotal role to play. Since its inception in 1972, my local authority, Wigan metropolitan borough council, has developed four training centres and a factory and has developed within that factory the employment of disabled people to the point at which almost all the factory, including the management, is run exclusively by disabled people for disabled people, operating and selling its services in the market place, to other local authorities and to private industry. Wigan also provides sheltered working arrange-ments for severely disabled people with learning difficulties and physical difficulties. It has transformed their lives in the community, allowing individuals to make choices and their families to be involved in those choices.
At the very point at which we are discussing developing a national framework, all those schemes are put at risk by leaked reports and suggestions that local authorities will have to put these provisions out to tender. That flies in the
106
face of evidence and in the face of all that we were hoping to do to develop within the community choices for people with physical and learning difficulties.
We also have to provide choice in health care. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and I know all too well about cuts and the lack of resources in the development of health care facilities in our community for those with physical handicaps. We are currently fighting off proposals to close five units in the metropolitan borough of Wigan, all with a co-responsibility for care facilities within the community, linking them with the National Health Service and selling them off in an asset-stripping exercise to a property developer who will develop the sites for housing in the green belt where most of the sites are located. That does not ring true with what we are debating today and the attitudes that have been struck by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I ask the Minister to intervene at this early stage and put down the nonsense of asset-stripping large parts of the National Health Service and its resources. Those resources are needed as part of the core services for care in the community.
We must also develop within our care plan choices for personal expression. Many of the most profoundly disabled people can still express themselves through art, music and other cultural activities. We have to challenge the ethos that in this country the arts will be provided mainly through private donations and sponsorship. For many profoundly disabled people, the arts are the only form of expression that they have been able to develop., and much of that is at risk with the cuts in expenditure in local authorities and the development of alternative arts and crafts within local authority social service departments.
During this debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House have set out clearly the priorities for the Government. They are about the nature of the care to he provided, the types of framework necessary to ensure that that care is provided and the nature of the funding that is required.
If the Minister is serious about listening, this debate will have laid to rest the 10 years of mismanagement of community care and the ethos of the private sector and market forces delivering care. Let us hope it has been buried here and that we can have a fresh start, because out there millions of people, carers and the disabled, look to this House for salvation.
9.20 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I think that the House will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that this has been an excellent debate. The cameras that have witnessed our proceedings would have done a great service to Parliament had it been possible to project the debate to a wider audience. The public would not have been disappointed.
The Minister of State said that he sought a non-partisan debate. In many ways, he has been given his wish. Whether speeches were robust or coded, it has to be said that there was precious little support for the Government's priorities for community care and for their failure to respond in any tangible way to the Griffiths report in the 19 months that have elasped since it was published.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) said that he attempted to obtain

107
the White Paper before he came to the Chamber. I am not surprised. After all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) reminded us, the Secretary of State told the House on 12 July that the White Paper would be available during the recess. That has not happened.
We are getting used to broken promises from this Government and this Secretary of State. It is not surprising to me that yet another pledge has gone, to coin a phrase, "just like that." The great pity is that so many of the Government's other pledges have gone with it. We have not seen the challenge for community care policies being matched by resources. It was clear from speech after speech from hon. Members on both sides of the House, that, whatever reservations we might have about some of Sir Roy's recommendations, we agree that we have had far too much rhetoric that has not been matched with resources.
As we have waited for the Government's response, the problems that have been identified have grown. The problems of the elderly have been mentioned and carers have been an important aspect of the debate. Only yesterday we had a compelling report from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which underlined the appalling problems of young people leaving care and facing, in many cases, crime and even prostitution. Opposition Members hope that that matter will finally be tackled in the Children Bill, when we debate it in the House next week.
The Government have said that the purpose of this debate is to give them the opportunity to listen. Have they been listening? Although I am pleased to welcome the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), it seems to me that the capacity of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) showed a measure of listening fatigue. I am sorry if that is the case. If time allows, I hope to refer to some of the hon. Gentleman's comments later.
If the Government are truly listening to the House and to the voluntary bodies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston referred, there are two things which must concern them above all others. First, the House has made it clear that there is an overwhelming case for ring fencing as we identify priorities. The hon. Members for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) underlined that theme and it has been widely echoed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke for the House when he made a plea for a full national insurance record for carers. Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting Maureen Oswin, who spent five years of her life looking after her sister who was dying of cancer. I was impressed that she displayed no bitterness. She made a genuine plea from the heart, based on her experience, for the House and the Government to accept their responsibilities to carers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) underlined that important plea based on their constituency experience.
I welcomed some contributions from Conservative Members. I hope that I do not embarrass the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) when I say that his remarks on training were appropriate. We will not achieve
108
the objectives that we all share, which represent the major recommendations of the Griffiths report about cost-effectiveness, if proper funding for training is withheld.
The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) mentioned the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. I had a little to do with that Act, which received tremendous support from all hon. Members. Nevertheless, there was a time when I felt a little embarrassed about raising it. My embarrassment is a fraction of the embarrassment that the Secretary of State and his Ministers should feel when they attempt to defend the Government's squalid position on that vital legislation.
I want to examine in detail the relevance of the Act to the Griffiths report and to any debate on community care. Section 7 is crucial to every point that has been made, including the important points made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, about people being discharged from long-stay psychiatric hospitals. There is talk about listening and consultation, but there was immense consultation throughout the passage of that Act, which was endorsed by both Houses without a vote. On 12 July the Secretary of State said:
"On the health side, I will ensure that discharges of seriously mentally ill people from hospital will take place only when adequate medical and social care is available for them outside hospital."—[Official Report, 12 July 1989, Vol. 156, c. 978.]
How does he plan to do that without proper assessment under section 3? Practical measures must be introduced or the Secretary of State's words become mere rhetoric of the type that Sir Roy identified.
The Act says that assessment should be carried out prior to discharge. In the best spirit of everything that has been said today about the consumer, the Act says that the consumer should be consulted about assessment by the health authority and by social services. For many people who would not be able to be involved in the process, section 1 deals with advocacy and representation and ensures that their needs are not ignored.
If we are talking about consumerism, we are also talking, especially in terms of discharge from hospital, about national standards. The message from hon. Members, which we have heard clearly from constituency after constituency, is that people are sick and tired of hearing about the accidents of geography and patchy planning.
Hon. Members have told us about the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and the 90 per cent. of admissions of schizophrenics that are re-admissions after relapse. Where is the economy in that? How can the Treasury take a hard line with any justification, given that it is not even financially viable, apart from being socially unacceptable?
Again, on 12 July, in an off-the-cuff remark in reply to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), the Secretary of State said:
"We do not think that, on this occasion, it is right to use the 1986 Act to implement any part of what we are doing today." —[Official Report, 12 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 192.]
Many hon. Members found that comment staggering. If that statement represented a change of policy, the House was entitled to hear about it long before it did and in a more formal way.
If this is a change of policy, I invite the Minister to tell us why the Department of Health issued the booklet "Discharge of Patients from Hospitals", which clearly

109
identifies the responsibility of social service departments and health authorities in terms of section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. More important, given all the Government's discussions with local authorities and given that the House was told by Minister after Minister, including the Prime Minister, that section 7 and the rest of the Act would be implemented when resources became available, the House is entitled to an explanation as to why that commitment was lightly dismissed.
I turn to residential provision and the problems of the elderly. Hon. Members have said that they appreciate that all Governments would have a problem in terms of demography. More and more people are living longer. This should be seen as a challenge and opportunity, not something that is hanging around our necks. The Government have said that they will not take a particular approach until they have consulted and heard our debates, but they give the impression that they do not accept the case for the mixed economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston confirmed that this is the Labour party's approach. It is realistic and reasonable. It would be difficult to remove the influence of local authorities in terms of not only enabling but providing.
I disagree with the speech of the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), which appeared to be out of step even with the views of other Conservative Members. I shall not pretend that local authorities have a monopoly of wisdom, but the case for a national inspectorate for the private and the public sectors has been underlined. There may well be more support in Whitehall circles for the view of the hon. Member for Gedling—the hon. Gentleman may feel that I tend to flatter—than for the view of other hon. Members, but it would represent a setback in terms of enabling as well as providing.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stirling is not present. The Opposition do not ignore the role of the Adam Smith Institute in giving advice to the Government. A few days ago, it published a document on community care—[Interruption.] I point out to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East that our proceedings are not publicly televised yet. With that document it published a news release which said:
"The report also calls for local authorities to turn over all"—
I emphasise "all"—
"their care homes to private and voluntary care providers in order to avoid any possible conflict of interest. Michael Forsyth, Scottish Health Minister writes that 'There is no question of local authorities providing a full range of services directly themselves. We have made it quite clear that the maximum possible use should be made of the voluntary and commercial sectors so as to widen individuals' room for choice'."
The Government cannot have choice if by their policy on social security and their approach to residential care they discriminate quite clearly and deliberately, as the Adam Smith Institute would advocate, against one of the sectors —in this case the local authority sector.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As an hon. Member who has served in local government, I believe that not only the officials but the elected members of county councils and other local authorities have considerable knowledge and an immense commitment to residential care. It would be a catastrophe if that was surrendered and given up.
Mr. Clarke: I am pleased to endorse the hon. Gentleman's comment. It would be a great tragedy if the Government tried to get themselves off the hook of Griffiths's major recommendation about local authorities by diluting the role which has so clearly been endorsed in this debate.
Tonight, we are speaking about community care in action. Hon. Members have wearily indicated that speeches in the past have not been met by the sort of action that we would wish to see. We want to extend best practice, including endorsing the consumer's right, to every part of the United Kingdom. At last week's Conservative party conference delegates had a great deal to say about active citizenship. In a first class speech my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was able to underline what active citizenship under this Government means in practice for Crossroads.
Apart from the absence of a strategy for community care, people are worried that a number of contradictions exist between various Government Departments, many involving the Department of Employment. I am not even sure whether the Department of Health and the Department of Employment have got together on the training scheme which so worries Crossroads.
I shall quote from the Scottish annual Crossroads care report and mention some of the remarks made by its chairman, I. J. Cowan:
"On the 5 September when the Manpower Services Commission community programme ended and employment training started, 25 schemes were involved. Most investigated ET and decided it was unsuitable. In the event, eight joined the ET but at the end of the year only four remained and they were caring for 16 per cent. fewer families and providing 45 per cent. less caring hours. The other 20 schemes were supplying a similarly reduced level of care. The number of families cared for was down by 24 per cent. and the number of caring hours provided, down by 48 per cent."
If we are to have community care involving all who are capable of making a contribution, the voluntary sector is entitled to ask for better than that. If we are to talk about carers in the way that we have done during this debate, we must deplore the absence of any proper planning which takes into account not just the views of the carers, profoundly important though they are, but the fact that section 8 of the 1986 Act already contains the opportunity —if the Government wish to grasp it—for carers to have an assessment of their own position and that of disabled people.
A document from SENSE, the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association, refers to the sad and tragic case —it is known to the House—of Beverley Lewis, a 24-year-old rubella sufferer who died weighing four and a half stone. Clearly, a domestic problem involving caring also existed. The following quotation is not what I or other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have given massive support to the Act have said; it is the organisation's opinion:
"Implementing the Disabled Persons Act. This Act if implemented could have completely transformed Beverly Lewis' life. It came too late for her but for the many other deaf-blind young people and adults it is essential if community care is going to work."
It certainly is.
I congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Community care and our debates on it are rightly here to stay. The pressures on the National Health Service mean that 90 per cent. of the most vulnerable people in society are still out there in the community. I am

111
pleased that today at least we have had the chance to address some of these problems, and, together with my hon. Friends, I look forward to offering a meaningful solution to the need within our communities, which the existence of those problems invites.
9.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) doubted whether this debate would make any difference to Government thinking and implied that the White Paper had already been written. The Government have listened carefully to the contributions to this debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) that it has been a most valuable and interesting debate, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If we had published the White Paper last week he would have been the first to say that the Government were not listening. It was a sensible decision first to listen to the debate and then to publish the White Paper. I must tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that we have adopted the Griffiths report not reluctantly but enthusiastically.
I want to deal first with the initiatives that we are planning for the mentally ill. This subject was raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), and by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milnegavie (Mr. Worthington), all of whom rightly attach great importance to this issue.
As the House knows, I made a statement on 13 July clearly setting out the initiatives that the Government propose to follow. Our overall aim is clear and we have reaffirmed the policy pursued by different Governments over the past 20 years. We want to develop locally based hospital and community services, including long-term asylum facilities. I stress again that, as a consequence of, and not as a driving force behind, that policy some, but not all, of the large, isolated Victorian hospitals will close. This civilised and humanitarian policy, which I hope has the support of both sides of the House, will involve closures only when we are satisfied that there are adequate facilities in the community, and not before.
Hon. Members on both sides have expressed worries not about this general philosophy but about its implementation, and I want to deal briefly with certain aspects of our policy, beginning with procedure. We have made it plain that by April 1991 all district health authorities must have in place a proper care programme for the discharge of each and every patient. That programme will entail not only a register but a stipulation of who is in charge of the patient once he is discharged. This policy will apply not only to those discharged from hospital but to the growing number who never reach hospital in the first place.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West spoke about the draft guidelines which we have circulated to enable district health authorities to put in place this new requirement. I am delighted to see that the Royal College
112
of Psychiatrists is drawing up minimum acceptable standards for discharge and, most important, standards for following up patients after they leave hospital.
Secondly, I should like to speak about resources. In the fiscal year 1991–92 and succeeding years, new extra money will be available through the National Health Service to local authorities to develop additional social care services for the mentally ill. That is additional and new money and we shall discuss with the Treasury during the public expenditure survey round next year the specific amount to be provided. Only about 3 per cent. of social services authority expenditure is spent specifically on the care of the mentally ill. Those services have various pressures upon them, but that is a bald statement of fact. There is need for additional resources. There will be a specific grant paid on agreed plans for programmes to be put in place by local authorities.
Thirdly, I shall deal with capital provision. I am well aware that we need facilities in the community before the hospitals close and not afterwards. We have a number of initiatives, including exploring the use of private sector finance to build community facilities now in return for releasing the land to private sector developers when the hospital closes. We are presently looking at possible candidates.
Mr. McCartney: That is asset stripping.
Mr. Freeman: It is not asset stripping. It is accelerating the programme of expenditure which would not otherwise have been possible. We are looking at possible candidates and they have to prove themselves good value for money. I hope that we can make progress on that score. I must emphasise the heavy burden borne by local district health authorities in keeping open half-empty psychiatric hospitals. That is extremely expensive, and anything that we can do legitimately to speed up that process is all to the good.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Freeman: No. I regret that I have only 14 minutes to try to answer the points raised in the debate.
I shall devote two minutes to the homeless mentally ill, especially those in London. That issue greatly concerns the Department of Health and me. The Government are anxious to assist homeless people, whatever their circumstances or medical needs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will shortly report on his review of the homelessness legislation. My ministerial colleagues and I at the Department of Health have a particular responsibility in respect of that part of the homeless population suffering from mental illness.
It is difficult to get firm facts and figures, but the organisations with which we are in touch, such as St. Mungo's and the Bondway housing association think that on average 10,000 people sleep rough in London every night, and of those, about 30 per cent. have obvious mental health problems. There are of course smaller numbers in other towns and cities. Some of those people have never been in touch with the psychiatric services. Others have been, but for one reason or another have broken off contact with the services. I accept that a proportion consists of people who have been discharged in the past from hospital without adequate arrangements being made for their care in the community.

113
As I have already made clear, we are taking steps to make arrangements for providing continuing care in the community more effective. That will be done in particular through the requirement on district health authorities to introduce the care programme approach from 1 April 1991 and the new specific grant to social service authorities payable from the same date. Those initiatives will not immediately assist those in need of psychiatric treatment and currently among the homeless population. We are therefore considering how best to help that group.
Those experienced in working with that group, including the departmentally funded psychiatric team for single homeless people at Guy's hospital, are clear that it is not realistic to offer what will often need to be fairly long-term treatment to people with no settled accommoda-tion. Therefore, the aim must be to increase the number of hostel places and places in group homes with proper social work support to create the necessary bases from which people can receive treatment.
The experience of the Bondway housing association shows that reasonable supported accommodation accept-able to homeless people with mental illness can be provided economically. We are having talks with those with direct experience of helping this vulnerable group, and we shall soon be talking to the statutory services concerned. We recognise the problem, we intend to work with and build upon the achievements of the voluntary sector and bring our review to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible. I hope that the House welcomes that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about those in prison?
Mr. Freeman: Professor Gunn, on instructions from the Home Office, is surveying the population not only in the remand prisons but in long-stay gaols to identify how many of the prison population should be either in special hospitals but in psychiatric hospitals. We await that study with interest. There is no doubt in my mind that a significant proportion of prisoners should be not in prison but being cared for in hospital. Once we have that information, we shall proceed accordingly.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked a specific question about the obligation on local authorities in relation to care. A statutory obligation to assess and then to decide the best method of care, whether at home or not, will be placed on local authorities. As many hon. Members have said, a proportion of those in residential homes would have preferred to stay at home and wish to be cared for at home. The revenue support grant will be reassessed each year for the level of provision necessary for local authorities to fund not only care in residential accommodation for new claimants and new applicants from 1 April 1991 but the level of domiciliary care that is needed. We shall spell out our proposals in greater detail in the White Paper.
Like the hon. Member for Livingston, the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) all raised with me the important issue of the role of the public sector. I am glad to make the Government's position quite clear. We have no intention of introducing any element of compulsory tendering on home help provision or in any other element of local authority care. The speculation by
114
some hon. Members about privatisation of local authority care services is misplaced, and I am happy to clear up that misunderstanding.
We want a partnership between the local authorities, which play an important role, and the voluntary and private sectors. The Government do not seek, and it is not part of our policy, to prevent local authorities from providing care. Some local authorities—it is entirely a matter for them—will decide to continue to provide services and even enhance, improve or increase the level of care that they provide. That is satisfactory. We make no judgment about the level of care to be provided by local authorities. We regard services provided by the voluntary and private sectors as supplementary and not as a replacement of local authority care. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), and for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), all of whom expressed a similar sentiment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) asked whether certain jobs can or should be done entirely by the voluntary sector. While we welcome the contribution of the voluntary sector, we have no intention of heaping obligations on it, either exclusively or to a greater extent. He also asked about long-stay mental handicap hospitals and whether the management of them would be transferred to the social services department. We have no such proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh raised two of the central issues of this debate, the first being the vital importance of carers. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West also referred to this point. They will find that the White Paper will emphasise that support for carers is the top priority. It will be seen when we publish the White Paper how we intend to manifest that priority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh raised also the issue of ring fencing, or specific grants. The issue has been taken up by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Livingston. The Government are grateful for the views which have been expressed and the arguments which have been advanced. I say in defence of the opposing view—that grants should not be ring-fenced or should not be made specific—that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have confidence in local government and social service departments, of whatever political persuasion, making the right judgments and arriving at the right priorities when determining the level of domiciliary care and of assistance for residential homes.
I invite the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh to consider that the Government are seeking to provide additional money to supplement the funds that social services departments already have. We do not want the departments themselves to ring-fence funds. We want the additional money that will be transferred from the Department of Social Security through the payers' mechanism to be incremental funds to build upon that which is already being achieved in domiciliary care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East referred me to the Schizophrenia After-Care Bill which was introduced in another place and which has now reached this place. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall be building upon the valuable lessons that have been set in the introduction of that Bill and in the debates that took place in another place.

115
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in what I considered to be a refreshing and interesting speech, asked a number of specific questions. He adopted an interesting consumerist approach to community care, which I am sure would be echoed by many of my hon. Friends, especially in the light of his support for the White Paper entitled "Working for Patients", for which we are grateful. If I may, I shall write to him about flexibility of contracts. His comments deserve a serious reply, and that cannot be done in the few minutes that are available to me this evening.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to mention that the independent living fund has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. It is designed to help those with disablement live independently within the community. Applications can be made at the Nottingham office and local inquiries can be made at the social services department. The hon. Gentleman knows that vouchers have been discussed by some Conservative Members. I can assure him that his comments will be borne in mind carefully.
I find myself agreeing with both of the key points of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. Essentially, my hon. Friend wants registration and inspection to be carried out independently, and to be seen to be done in that way. Perhaps we may differ in the ultimate in how we propose that that should be done, but I take his point. I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends believe strongly that there should be independent assessment. We believe also that the continuous monitoring of local authorities is essential. I can tell my hon. Friend that the social services inspectorate at the Department of Health takes that job extremely seriously. We shall spell out in the White Paper how we envisage that task being discharged.
116
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to village developments. If it transpires that I have misunderstood her, perhaps she will be kind enough to write. I am a supporter of village developments, especially for the mentally handicapped, but only if they are not geographically isolated. They should be seen as proximate to the community and not inward-looking. If that is what the hon. Lady believes, I agree with the sentiments that she expressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham talked about training. The Government agree with him. An additional central grant is to be made in 1990–91 of about £2 million, as a start, to support post-qualifying training in management in social care. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health is to meet the Association of Directors of Social Services tomorrow. He has had two meetings already with it this year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) referred to hospital discharges. He is right to say that they increase pressure for domiciliary care. We are concerned that there are some patients in acute hospitals who are blocking beds because they cannot be discharged as there is no domiciliary support for them. Our proposals will help to overcome that problem. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent raised the question of advocacy. We very much support that principle, which will help those with mental illness and handicap to understand not only their rights but the services available.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) referred to compulsory treatment orders. We are still seeking professional opinion on that matter. I am sure that the House would wish to proceed with great caution, because it is not an issue that we take lightly. If we do recommend that it should proceed, I am sure that the House——
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The Economy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Goodlad.]
10 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: The Government are in a mess and the economy is in a mess, yet because of the magnitude of the crisis no one, least of all Opposition Members, draws any pleasure from the disarray in which the Government find themselves. The events of the past two weeks show that the Government have finally lost control of the economy. However, it is no recent crisis; it comes on top of 10 years of mismanagement, mistaken policies and ideological ineptitude. To put that right, the Labour party needs to win the next election, whatever any passing opinion poll may say. Current polls put us well in the lead, but we cannot depend upon them. We must expose the Government's economic policies to full public understand-ing and ensure that the public are aware of the full extent of the incompetence of the Thatcher Government. By proving that, we can also pick up the pieces of the shattered economy and fashion a viable economy to take Britain towards the next century.
First, we need to dispose once and for all of the myth of the economic miracle. That is relatively simple to do by measuring reality by the accepted indicators of economic success and failure—inflation, the trade balance, the standing of the pound, the level of investment and the interest rate. Every indicator is a chapter heading in the indictment of this Government. The Chancellor once said that inflation was the judge and jury of his economic policy. After 10 years of being the top economic priority of the Government, inflation is now 7·6 per cent. and rising, prices have almost doubled since 1979 and our inflation is the highest of the major industrialised countries. There is no doubt about the jury's verdict—in more than one way it should be a capital sentence. On inflation alone, the claim for an economic miracle is no more than a political junk bond.
On our balance of trade, the Thatcherite destruction of our economic base is evidenced by the world record gap of £22,000 million between what we import and what we export—again, built squarely upon the Government-induced recession of 1979 to 1981, which destroyed a fifth of our manufacturing export potential, and the bribery Budgets that vacuumed in exports from throughout the globe. Quite simply, we are living beyond our means. We are living on borrowings from abroad, drawn in by excessively high interest rates. We are increasingly unable to compete and are now being measured and fitted for a walk-on part in a mere market for other people's goods, while diminishing as a producer in our own right.
Some estimates now predict a deficit of £40,000 million to £50,000 million for next year. The Chancellor, in one of his sweeps of confidence, declared that the deficit was irrelevant as it takes place in the private sector. I can ask him only to heed the words of a small business man who said last week:
"I beg our party not to argue that a deficit in overseas trade is of incidental importance, self-correcting, easily financed. I don't believe a word of it."
Those were the words of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). He is right to challenge the Chancellor's bland assertion that the deficit can be financed.
118
What that really means for ordinary people is that the chronic imbalance between imports and exports brought about by Government incompetence can be sustained by a secret tax which has not been authorised by Parliament. That tax is levied on every home owner and business through higher interest rates. For every home owner with a £30,000 mortgage the Lawson tax is an extra £73 a month compared with what was being paid last year. For a small business man with a £5,000 loan the Lawson tax is a £75 addition per month to what was being paid last year. To British industry the Lawson tax is now £250 million for every 1 per cent. increase in interest rates.
Even before that, the income tax cuts were more than cancelled out by the rises in VAT—indirect taxation—so that the average tax burden on a typical family is higher under this allegedly tax-cutting Conservative Government than it was under the previous Labour Government.
For 10 years, the extent of the trade imbalance has been concealed by the God-given gift of North sea oil exports which peaked at £8 billion in 1985 and even last year reduced the real deficit from £21·7 billion to £14·6 billion. Even the invisible earnings, for so long the economic seventh cavalry riding to save the trade deficit, are now themselves cantering inexorably towards the knackers' yard.
The "Concise Oxford Dictionary" describes a miracle as a
"marvellous event due to some … supernatural agency."
This economic disaster, being wholly man-made, or woman-made, cannot qualify as a miracle even under that broad dictionary term.
A further key indicator of the economic miracle, or debacle, is the standing of the pound. We must be thankful that the Chancellor, who has presided over an 11 per cent. devaluation of the pound this year, still has enough of a sense of humour to say to his conference:
"We Conservatives are not the party of devaluation."
That was such a whopper that even the Prime Minister might have smirked at that on the way home.
Since 26 September the Government, who cannot find money for hospitals, schools or adequate pensions, have found £3,000 million to waste in a vain effort to support the price of the pound. To quote a cliché—"It really is not good enough to throw money at these problems."
At my grandfather's knee I heard about the IMF loan of 1976. It is worth remembering that all the political suffering and the anxiety that that caused was for less than what was quietly frittered away over the recent three-week period. When I examine the magnitude and predictability of the economic disaster I am left incredulous at the easy ride that the Government have been given by the commentators and the media.
Many will feel, as I do, that the dislocation of the money markets and the City of London from the real economy of industry, production and work, which is even admitted by the Chancellor, is to continue to be host to a potentially lethal parasite which Britain must at some point either purge from its system or assimilate.
Continuing industrial weakness is the main structural problem in the United Kingdom. To survive as a competitive economy we must invest. Yet by every comparison with our main competitors we are investing less than they are. It is little wonder that our markets are being taken over by their goods.
Investment in new plant and buildings is only now back to 1979 levels. The collapse in training, the shortage of

119
skills and the lack of innovation, research and development and science are symptoms of the lack of investment in our economy. Yet the Government, by using figures which include spending on the acquisition of privatised companies, claim an increase in investment.
Statistically—in this field as in others—the Government sort the wheat from the chaff, and use the chaff. While British industry stands on its own two knees, every other industrial economy is supported and encouraged by its Government. There is massive investment in infrastructure development, transport and capital re-equipment in Germany, Italy and France—indeed, throughout the countries that are our major competitors. Meanwhile my region, the east midlands, cannot even get £95 million out of the Government for the electrification of the midlands main lines, which is vital if we are to make a success of 1992. While this penny-pinching goes on in our economy, Japan is to invest £150 billion in its domestic market.
Even some American economists are now advocating what they call a national competitiveness policy. While Governments throughout the world rediscover and press on with investment-led development programmes, Britain is politically captured in a free-market time warp that is as outmoded and unworkable in its way as any fossilised state economy in the eastern bloc.
The final indictment is interest rates. High interest rates —ours are the highest in industrialised Europe—crucify existing borrowers, as every home owner and every business knows. Even more dire, they put off potential investment, which is critical if we are to rebuild the real economy that is the base on which we must found our long-term prosperity. An increasing amount of industrial borrowing at these punitive interest rates is not investment borrowing for growth; it is distress borrowing to fend off bankruptcy, just as we saw in the period between 1979 and 1981. The record is of a 10-year decline, which can be judged miraculous only by a staggering level of incompetence.
Some Chancellors in the past have unfortunately managed to get inflation up, interest rates high, the pound shaky or the trade gap wide; but they have never done all those things at once. Perhaps that is the economic miracle of which the Government boast. Monetarism does not work—but what a price we have had to pay for the Government's learning curve.
Whatever else he may be, the Chancellor is not stupid: it may have taken him some years, but he knows now that there is another way forward. In the past he has ditched unworkable monetary targets, and now he must ditch some more ideological baggage and move in on our agenda. If he is not allowed to by "She who must be obeyed", he should resign not merely his office but his seat so that Professor Alan Walters can for once observe the constitutional proprieties—that the man who runs the economy in the United Kingdom is normally elected.
What would the Chancellor do if he were free to run the economy sensibly? Obviously he would not start from here; however, within the constraints of the current position, a number of steps could be taken by a Member of Parliament for Blaby, for Henley or—more likely—for Monklands, East. They all revolve round tackling the
120
structural problems of the United Kingdom economy: putting the producer before the financier and the long term before the short term.
First, the pound must be allowed to find its accurate and sustainable international valuation. As well as acting as a stimulus to industry and exports, that would end the colossal losses in reserves that we have seen in recent weeks. Next, the Budget surplus of income over expenditure, currently running at £14 billion, must be used for investment in the domestic economy—in education, training, capital equipment and infrastructure—rather than fuelling the financial markets through the premature repayment of national debt.
Thirdly, we must begin to develop international co-ordination and, in turn, develop exchange stability. In other words, we must try to inoculate the economy as far as possible from currency speculation. That will mean beginning to negotiate on ERM and EMS as the floating pound begins to stabilise.
That assumes that our entry will not be vetoed. The Delors report demands economic similarity and convergence as a prerequisite among European nations for membership. Britain can hardly be said to be in that position. Indeed, the longer that serious negotiation is left, the greater divergence will come. In this area it is not so much that unilateralism has failed as that multilateralism has not yet been tried.
Fourthly, painful though it may be, we must reduce consumer demand to boost savings and build up capital spending by examining and reassessing the top rate of tax cuts of the 1988 and previous Budgets and then by instituting a more sophisticated control of credit than the crude use of interest rates. Such credit management, while apparently revolutionary in Thatcher's Britain, is routine and non-controversial in most continental countries—our partners in Europe.
Fifthly, there must be a major public and political commitment to long-termism by institutionalising lending at lower rates for industry and commerce.
That package may be commonplace in most developed countries and may seem unambitious enough if survival can be said not to be an ambition. But we cannot over-emphasise the extent of the economic disaster that will face the next Labour Government. The extent of that disaster has outrun even the innovations of Labour's policy review, and even more radical solutions are inescapable if we are to manage capitalism effectively enough for it to be the staging post for progress towards our Socialist values.
It may be particularly unpalatable, but so far on these Benches I hear no disagreement that, for the education, training and infrastructure investment to bear fruit, there will be many years during which precious priorities—labour and public spending priorities—will have to be forgone. The extent of our economic crisis and the economic disaster which my right hon. and hon. Friends will inherit will mean that there cannot possibly be any return to business as usual—to the Callaghan or Wilson years of a little change here and there. There will be no leeway for a serious Government to conduct that sort of business.
The Thatcher experiment failed long ago, but it has been camouflaged by North sea oil revenues, by the asset-stripping of public property and by what I must admit has been some brilliant media management by the Conservative Government. But all that is coming to an

121
end. Little of it can be extended any further. For too long my party has allowed the concept of "There is no alternative" to hold sway. Now there is an alternative. The question that remains is whether it will be the present Chancellor or the next Labour Chancellor who implements that change.
10.18 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): The economic picture of Britain just painted by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is ludicrous. The hon. Gentleman spoke as one who, for the sake of narrow party advantage, seems to resent our success at managing the economy in the past decade. That success has brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of Britain. Britain has gone from beng the sick man of Europe under Labour—the Wilson-Callaghan era—to being one of the most dynamic countries in Europe under the Conservatives.
When we recall what Britain was like in 1979, the scale of our achievement becomes clear. Under Labour, borrowing and spending rose inexorably in its search for growth and higher employment. Living standards barely improved, taxes were high and industry, over-regulated and unprofitable, was unwilling to invest. Excessive interference and controls meant that important markets ceased to work properly, and some hardly at all. Spending and borrowing rocketed. Attempts to fine-tune demand led to inflation of 27 per cent. The trade union barons held the country to ransom. The humiliating consequence of this sad fiasco was that the Labour Government were forced to go to the IMF with their begging bowl.
The situation today is very different. We have demonstrated that the way to generate sustainable economic growth is not through Government meddling in the economy; instead, the Government have let market forces work. We have liberated the private sector from unnecessary controls and regulations and industry has responded to its new found freedom. We have removed large areas of the economy from public control and the tax system has been reformed; it no longer smothers enterprise, but encourages it.
Just as importantly, we have given individuals a greater stake in their own output, through profit-related pay and wider share ownership schemes, but above all by reducing tax rates so that they can keep for themselves more of what they earn; and we have returned vast areas of the economy to the private sector. The end result has been to allow firms to get on with what they are there to do: make the goods that consumers wish to buy.
The result of those policies has been a supply side revolution. Manufacturing productivity has grown, very much faster than in the dismal 1970s and manufacturing output, which fell under the previous Labour Government, is running at record levels and continues to rise. Businesses are at their most profitable for 20 years. Business investment is at record levels, not merely in absolute terms, but as a proportion of total national income. Business investment grew by 17 per cent. last year alone, more than three times as fast as it did during the entire five and a half years of the previous Labour Government.
122
The investment boom is not just a recent development. In the past seven years investment has grown more than twice as fast as consumption, a clear sign that British industry has confidence in the future.
Confidence in the future can be seen in other ways as well. New businesses are being started at a rate of well over 1,000 a week—a new record and a clear sign of the strength of the enterprise culture. It is not just businesses that have benefited. In the past five years, we have created far more new jobs than any other European country. Employment is now at record levels and living standards have been transformed.
The Government's finances have been transformed too. We are now heading for a budget surplus for the third successive year. That is an achievement unequalled in the past 40 years. We are now repaying the national debt and at the same time the success of the economy has allowed us to provide extra resources for priority areas such as the National Health Service.
Putting the performance of the British economy into a world context makes it easy to appreciate the massive turnaround in the past 10 years. Throughout the 1960s arid the 1970s, the United Kingdom grew more slowly than all the other major European countries, in the 1980s we are top of the league. In the 1960s and the 1970s, we were at or near the bottom of the European investment growth league, in the 1980s we are top. During the dismal 1960s and 1970s, we were languishing near the bottom of the productivity growth league, but since 1980 productivity in the whole economy has grown faster than in any other major industrialised country except Japan, and in manufacturing we have beaten even the Japanese.
People and businesses here and abroad are confident that the Government remain committed to tough action against inflation. High interest rates are the only way in which to deal with inflation. We will take no risks with inflation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that interest rates will stay as high as necessary, for as long as is necessary, in order to bring inflation down. Meanwhile, we fully understand the pressures on people with mortgages and businesses, but they know that inflation must be brought down.
It has been suggested that we should use credit controls rather than interest rates in an effort to slow demand, but in a world of free capital movements and financial liberalisation, credit controls would be unworkable and would be child's play to get round. Nor are consumer credit controls of much relevance to the control of borrowing. No less than 85 per cent. of household borrowing is on mortgages. Trying to reduce borrowing through controls on other forms of consumer credit would, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor remarked in Blackpool last week, be
"a vain attempt to get the tail to wag the dog".
But these common-sense views on control are not shared by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), Labour's trade and industry spokesman. No wonder the latest Gould gaffe over hammering home owners puts him at odds with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor. We. are entitled to ask who speaks for Labour on the economy. Is it the hon. Member for Dagenham or the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East?
One of their Labour colleagues was quoted in The Independent yesterday as saying:

123
"This is absolute dynamite. He, Mr. Gould, has not cleared this with the policy review team. The National Executive Committee will want to have a look at this before it goes any further."
I should say so. And who better qualified to adjudicate on economic matters on the NEC than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), last year's chairman of the Labour party.
Inflation is being beaten. Demand growth is slowing. Retail sales growth over the past year has been only 1¼ per cent. But the current problem should be put into context. The underlying rate of inflation is now lower than the very lowest achieved than in any month under the last Labour Government. The last Labour Government would have given their eye teeth for our present inflation rate; but what would have been good enough for them is not good enough for us.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North also referred to the trade deficit. The deficit is a private sector phenomenon, the Government's finances are in massive surplus. That means that the current deficit is very different from the deficits of the 1970s or the US deficit of today. The increased deficit is, to a large extent, a result of the investment boom. This boom in private investment will stand us in good stead for the future, increasing both capacity and exports over time. As the IMF has recently said, such a deficit is "efficient and self-correcting".
Mr. Allen rose—
Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman has not given me my allotted time, and I have to complete my speech.
To the extent that the deficit reflects rapid demand growth from both industry and consumers, it will correct itself in time. We have always said that the current account would be among the last indicator to turn round.
Mr. Allen: If there is such a massive increase in manufacturing productivity, why are we importing capital equipment to feed the boom that the Minister is saying will come on stream? Why are we not using our own manufactures?
Mr. Ryder: The vast majority of manufactured goods that enter this country are for investment and production purposes and do not go into direct consumption. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
A remarkable transformation has taken place in Britain's fortunes over the last 10 years. We have overcome problems before and we shall do so again. This Government have reversed the remorseless decline in the fortunes of the British economy. The British people are more prosperous than ever and British business is investing more in the future than ever before. These successes, and countless others, could only have been achieved under a Conservative Government. They can only be wrecked by Labour.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the progress made in implementing the social charter directives.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission's proposal for a charter of social rights has not been agreed by the Council of Ministers. There have so far been no proposals for directives.

  Cenotaph (Illumination)
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has made arrangements for the Cenotaph to be illuminated in time for Remembrance Sunday.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The experimental lighting we have seen recently will become permanent well in time for Remembrance Sunday. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend on his suggestion last year which prompted such a pleasing enhancement of this very special monument.

  Cathedrals
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration she has given to the possibility of Government assistance towards the maintenance and repair of British cathedrals.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  Government expenditure on the maintenance of historic buildings in England is channelled through English Heritage. Its policy is to focus financial support on parish churches rather than cathedrals and is based on the Church of England's own view that cathedrals are better placed to raise funds from public and private sector appeals. Should English Heritage or the Church of England consider changing this policy, and should the changes have implications for English Heritage's overall grant-in-aid, the Government would carefully consider any case put forward. A similar policy is adopted by the Welsh Office and regularly reviewed.

  A different approach, however, is adopted by the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland since, of the 25 'churches' with cathedral status, only four are considered to be cathedrals in scale. It is considered unlikely that, were the cathedral status churches to be threatened, they could be assisted wholly by funds raised through public appeals and private donations. Consequently, cathedrals are considered for historic buildings repair if all the normal eligibility criteria are met. Since 1978, when a scheme of
  2
  historic building repair grants for churches in ecclesiastical use was set up, repairs to nine Scottish churches with cathedral status have attracted grant.

  Nuclear Weapons, Middle East
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her meeting with King Hussein of Jordan on his visit to London, she discussed(a) the dangers of nuclear weapons based in the Middle East, (b) Israel's possession of nuclear weapons capability and (c) initiatives that could be taken before and at the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation problems in the Middle East.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply No.

  Engagements (Japan)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list in the Official Report all her engagements for each day of her visit to Japan.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the Prime Minister's visit to Japan from 19 to 22 September, her engagements were as follows:

  19 September

  Meeting at Tokyo University with Professor Arima, President of the University, and three colleagues conducting environmental research.

  Call on Mitsui Bank, Hibiya, to see use of British Telecom and Reuter equipment in the foreign exchange dealing room.

  Reception with the British associations in Tokyo. Dinner at the Ambassador's Residence for senior Japanese politicians and businessmen.

  20 September

  Visit to Fujitsu computer factory, Numazu.

  Lunch hosted by Japan's economic organisations, speech on "the Open World Economy".

  Official talks with Japanese Foreign Minister, Mr. Nakayama.

  Visit to Tokyu Department Store, to see Laura Ashley shop and tea room.

  Official talks with the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Kaifu. Joint television broadcast with Mr. Kaifu, on the environment, education and democratic values.

  Working dinner with Mr. Kaifu.

  21 September

  Meeting with former Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Takeshita.

  Visit to Jaguar Japan at Shimbashi.

  Opening of British School Tokyo, and visit to adjacent Shibuya Girls High School and kindergarten.

  Visit to British Council.

  Luncheon with His Majesty The Emperor and other members of the Imperial Family at Akasaka Palace. Press conference.

  Meeting with Japanese Minister for International Trade and Industry, Mr. Matsunaga.

  Reception at the International Democratic Union Conference.

  Meeting with United States Vice President, Mr. Quayle. International Democratic Union Conference dinner hosted by Mr. Kaifu.

  22 September

  Wreath laying at the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery, Hodogaya.

  International Democratic Union Conference.

  Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister what standing instructions she has given to Ministers of the Crown concerning attributable statements of Government policy, or announcement of specific ministerial decisions, by civil servants; what changes have been made in this respect from the practice of previous administrations; and if she will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  When civil servants make such statements or announcements they do so on behalf of Ministers, and Ministers are accountable for them. This arrangement has also applied during previous Administrations.

  Visit (Japan)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers from(a) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) the Department of Trade and Industry accompanied her on her visit to Japan.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  No Ministers accompanied my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her visit to Japan.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she proposes to take to protect indigenous rain-forest peoples.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  We believe it important that all people, including the indigenous inhabitants of rain-forests, should participate in national development as equal partners.

  The Government bring their influence to bear in this respect especially in the World Bank and OECD. We also use our influence when we finance projects which protect rain-forests. We are planning an increased programme of aid for conservation and management of forests.

  Ombudsman (Appointment)
  Sir Antony Buck
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement concerning the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, Scotland and Wales.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with section 1(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, section 106(3) of the National Health Service Act 1977 and section 90(3) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, Sir Anthony Barrowclough will be retiring from these offices on 2 January 1990.

  I am sure that all Members of the House would wish me to express their gratitude and admiration for the very able and thorough manner in which he has fulfilled these duties over the last five years.

  Her Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment of Mr. William Kennedy Reid, CB as Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, for Scotland and for Wales with effect from 3 January 1990.

  Engagements
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

  . Mowlam
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 October.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Development Administration
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom consultants the Overseas Development Administration has commissioned in each of the past five years; what was the number of Scottish-based consultants; what was the total value of the commissions in each year; and what proportion of that value in each year was won by Scottish-based companies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The total expenditure on consultants commissioned by the Overseas Development Administration in the last five years was:

  million

  1984

  29·7

  1985

  30·0

  1986

  33·0

  1987

  34·8

  1988

  48·5

  We do not have statistics for numbers of consultants commissioned in this period, nor are records kept of the geographical base of consultants. I regret, therefore, that this information could be provided only at dispropor-tionate cost.

  Amazon Region, Colombia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has given the Colombian ambassador about his request to provide some professional expertise for the large research projects on the Amazon region of Colombia.
  5
  Mrs. Chalker
  I have told the ambassador that we understand from the National Planning Department in Bogota (the agency with which our aid programme in Colombia is agreed), that it did not intend to ask for our help in this project at this stage. But I have asked our embassy to discuss the ambassador's proposals further with the National Planning Department, to see whether it would wish to give them higher priority in future years.

ENERGY

  Sizewell C Power Station
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received during the recess about the Central Electricity Generating Board's application to build Sizewell C power station in Suffolk; and if he will make a statement about a public inquiry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has received approximately 50,000 objections to this application. My right hon. Friend has still to receive the views of the relevant local planning authorities. If either objects, my right hon. Friend will be obliged to hold a public inquiry. Even if they do not, he may still decide to do so in the light of the other objections received.

TRANSPORT

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of correspondence between his Department and Messrs Halcrow concerning the East London river crossing.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is not our practice to publish correspondence between the Department and its agents. If the hon. Member has any particular matter in mind, perhaps he would write to me.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations have been made concerning the effects on the river regime, silt depositions, and scouring, and the consequences for dredging costs arising from construction of the new design of bridge for the East London river crossing.

  Mr. Portillo
  On our behalf, Hydraulics Research Ltd. completed a desk study of the likely effects of alternative bridge designs on the river regime as part of the review of the Thames bridge design. The results of the desk study are contained in annex F of the July 1989 report by Sir William Halcrow and Partners into the alternative forms of bridge design, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Hydraulics Research is now carrying out model studies into the location and effect of scour, change in siltation and in flow distribution to confirm the findings of its desk study.

  London Underground
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement concerning the implications for passenger safety of the extension of one-person operation on the deep level tube sections of the London Underground;
  6
  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence concerning consultations between London Underground Ltd and the railway inspectorate on proposals for extending one-person operation on the tube railways of London.

  Mr. Portillo
  Extension of one-person operation is primarily a matter for London Underground Ltd" which has a statutory obligation to operate its services safely. There is, nevertheless, full consultation between London Underground Ltd and the railway inspectorate about the safety aspects of one-person operation proposals. The inspectorate would keep me informed about any proposal with which it was not satisfied. I am content with this arrangement and see no need for copies of correspondence to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken by the railway inspectorate to implement recommendation No. 131 of the Fennell report on the King's Cross line, requiring it to enlist outside advice in respect of one-person operation of trains in deep tube tunnels.

  Mr. Portillo
  The railway inspectorate, with the assistance of the Health and Safety Executive and the London Fire Brigade, undertook an investigation into the management of safety on the London Underground earlier in the year. Since the Fennell report was concerned with safety at stations, the investigation concentrated on the safety of passengers and staff in stations. It did not address the question of one-person operated trains. My right hon. Friend the member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) the then Secretary of State for Transport, announced on 24 May that he was that day publishing the inspectorate's report of the investigation, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to when and how London Underground Ltd, in accordance with recommen-dation 148 of the Fennell report, informed the travelling public of its intention to extend one-person operation of tube trains.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Underground Limited made it clear, when accepting recommendation 148 of the Fennell report, that information on safety performance would be transmitted to the London Regional Passengers' Committee from time to time; and that it would also mount publicity campaigns about specific safety issues as appropriate. It is for London Underground to consider the extent and timing of any publicity which it considers to be appropriate in relation to one-person operation of tube trains.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the safety audit committee of London Regional Transport, established consequent to recommen-dation 79 of the Fennell report, has within its responsibilities or terms of reference the level of platform staffing on stations and the planned extension of one-person operation of tube trains in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  The terms of reference of the safety audit committee are contained within the London Regional Transport document "Management of Safety", a copy of which was placed in the Library on 6 February 1989. They cover wide aspects of safety throughout LRT.

  Marine Office, Belfast
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the future of the Department of Transport marine office in Belfast; what is the rate per hour which people in Northern Ireland pay to this office for surveys; and if he will make a statement about future charges for these surveys.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have no proposals to change the status of the Department's marine office in Belfast. The complement of the office is kept under review in the light of the workload. The various fees currently payable for surveys in the United Kingdom and abroad are set out in the Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 323). The regulations are reviewed annually.

  Vessels (Defence)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British-owned vessels are registered under flag-of-convenience terms in the Bahamas; and what are the terms of his agreement with the Government of the Bahamas for use of these vessels for defence purposes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  One hundred and fourteen British-owned trading ships (excluding Hong Kong-owned ships) are registered in the Bahamas. A copy of the agreement with the Commonwealth of the Bahamas concerning the availability of British-owned ships to HMG in the event of hostilities is being sent to the hon. Member. A further copy has been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing merchant vessels available for defence purposes in each year from 1985 to the nearest available date; and if the table will distinguish between vessels registered in the United Kingdom and those registered in dependent territories.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is contained in "Defence Statistics" table 1.3 in the "Statement on Defence Estimates 1989" (Cm. 675-II) a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. Separate figures are given for the vessels registered in the United Kingdom and those registered in Crown dependencies and dependent territories, except for 1985 for which only United Kingdom-registered figures are available.

  Merchant Fleet
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing United Kingdom merchant fleet manpower in each grade in each year from 1975 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is as follows:

  Officers

  Ratings

  Cadets

  Total

  1975

  35,815

  33,524

  7,094

  76,433

  1976

  35,123

  31,644

  6,970

  73,737

  1977

  34,144

  29,856

  6,708

  70,708

  1978

  33,147

  29,219

  6,704

  69,070

  1979

  31,434

  28,942

  6,318

  66,694

  1980

  29,513

  28,167

  5,919

  63,599

  1981

  27,867

  27,422

  5,197

  60,486

  1982

  25,104

  25,224

  4,022

  54,350

  1983

  20,635

  22,624

  2,732

  45,991

  1984

  17,646

  20,251

  1,625

  39,522

  8

  Officers

  Ratings

  Cadets

  Total

  1985

  15,523

  19,095

  1,016

  35,634

  1986

  13,036

  17,612

  727

  31,375

  1987

  10,978

  15,835

  554

  27,367

  1988

  9,568

  13,638

  428

  23,634

  11989

  9,097

  12,651

  431

  22,179

  1 Provisional.

  Note:

  These numbers are based upon the General Council of British Shipping register for the years indicated as available for employment in National Maritime Board agreements with GCBS members or associates. They include foreign seafarers on NMB agreements. About 5,000 foreign seafarers serve on GCBS-registered vessels but probably fewer than 1,000 are under NMB conditions. The figures exclude seafarers employed by United Kingdom companies which do not use GCBS manning services; the latest estimate for these is 6,000.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the results of NATO's study of supply and demand for merchant shipping in crisis and war.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The study is due to be completed early in 1990. Publication of the results will be a matter for decision by NATO.

  Diesel Fumes
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the effectiveness of the law governing the emission of diesel fumes from vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government keep diesel emissions under constant review. Regulations have recently been made that apply for the first time limits on the emission of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons from new heavy diesel vehicles. The Commission is expected to make proposals shortly to introduce a second stage of limits on these emissions from heavy diesels and to set particulate limits for these vehicles for the first time. The United Kingdom has taken a leading role in helping the Commission to prepare a draft directive.

  The annual tests for buses and heavy goods vehicles include a visual check on smoke density. Over the past two years the Department has increased substantially its programme of roadside checks on the condition of goods vehicles. This also includes a check on smoke emissions. We are considering how future emission standards might most effectively be enforced.

  Marchioness Inquiry
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the official inquiry into the Marchioness tragedy will be able to take into consideration any proposal for permanent restriction of navigation through any existing, or proposed, Thames bridge, including proposals for uni-directional movement through any one span.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The inquiry into the loss of the Marchioness is still under way. The possibility of restricting navigation under River Thames bridges is one of the matters which is being considered.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the possible extension of the Docklands light railway from Becton to Thamesmead via a planned Thames crossing, including provision in such a crossing of a single, dual directional, line of rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are no plans for an extension of the Docklands light railway from Beckton to Thamesmead via the proposed east London river crossing. London Regional Transport do however plan a bus station at Gallions reach on the DLR Beckton extension which will provide a good interchange with buses serving Thamesmead via the river crossing.

  North Devon Coast
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations has he received over reduced levels of safety off the north Devon coast during 1989; and what remedial action he intends to take.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 17 such representations. The points raised have been answered and he is satisfied that the current facilities for co-ordinating maritime search and rescue operations off the north Devon coast are adequate to meet the rescue needs of the area.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has he made of the adequacy of the actual level of manning at coastguard headquarters, Swansea, and of the cover over the North Devon coastline by day and by night.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  All assurances given at the time of the announcement of the Swansea/Hartland merger have been

  Authorities

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Metropolitan districts

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  961

  28

  1,016

  28

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,578

  34

  2,728

  35

  St Helens

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  685

  25

  725

  26

  Sefton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,629

  27

  1,544

  23

  Wirral

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,080

  20

  1,384

  21

  Merseyside total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,933

  28

  7,336

  27

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  867

  23

  960

  24

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,249

  20

  1,321

  21

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,281

  22

  1,282

  19

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,983

  18

  2,098

  19

  South Yorkshire total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,379

  20

  5,661

  20

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,085

  20

  1040

  19

  Newcastle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,462

  22

  1,474

  21

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  864

  19

  1,018

  22

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  946

  22

  899

  21

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,560

  25

  1,601

  25

  Tyne & Wear total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,917

  22

  6,032

  21

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,327

  23

  4,199

  20

  Coventry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  988

  18

  1,102

  20

  10
  met. The staffing level at Swansea has been increased and since the merger the number of persons on watch has not fallen below four. This is adequate, as are all the current facilities for co-ordinating maritime search and rescue operations off the north Devon coast whether by day or night.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure the adequacy of the actual level of manning at coastguard headquarters, Swansea, and over the north Devon coastline by day arid by night.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Following the Swansea/Hartland merger on 6 December 1988, staffing levels were increased to reflect the area now covered by the Swansea centre. At no time since has the number of persons on watch fallen below four persons.

  An additional coastguard sector officer has been stationed in the Hartland area and the auxiliary coastguard rescue companies in the area remain unaffected by the merger. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied with these arrangements and that the current facilities for co-ordinating maritime search and rescue operations off the north Devon coast are adequate to meet the rescue needs of the area.

  Street Lighting
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give, for the last five years for which figures are available, the amount of money spent by each county highways authority and highways authority on street lighting; and if he will state the percentage that money is of the total amount spent on roads, authority by authority.

  Mr. Robert Atkins
  [pursuant to the reply, 18 July 1989, c. 88]: The following table was omitted.
  11

  Authorities

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Dudley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  901

  19

  918

  16

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  890

  14

  1,060

  14

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  833

  19

  881

  19

  Walsall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,061

  15

  945

  19

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  785

  22

  81

  16

  West Midlands total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,785

  19

  9,916

  18

  Bradford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,408

  18

  1,355

  16

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  776

  13

  862

  15

  Kirklees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,312

  15

  1,374

  15

  Leeds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,673

  21

  2,713

  18

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,116

  22

  1,306

  22

  West Yorkshire total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,335

  18

  7,610

  17

  Bolton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,044

  25

  1,159

  24

  Bury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  691

  26

  731

  27

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,251

  19

  2,382

  19

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  842

  20

  846

  16

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  951

  32

  898

  22

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  900

  31

  919

  28

  Stockport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  975

  26

  1,146

  25

  Tameside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  773

  16

  818

  16

  Trafford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  867

  20

  964

  22

  Wigan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  932

  18

  986

  17

  Greater Manchester total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,225

  22

  10,848

  21

  Notes:

  1.The figures shown for Greater London for the years 1983–84 to 1985–86 refer to spending on principal roads for which the Greater London Council were responsible. At that time London Boroughs were only responsible for non-principal roads. Following abolition of the GLC the London Boroughs took over the responsibility for principal roads.

  2.Up to and including 1985–86 the Metropolitan Counties were responsible for local roads. From 1986–87 this responsibility passed to the Metropolitan Districts upon abolition of the Metropolitan Counties. This is reflected in the table above.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Retired Judges
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the official retirement age for Court of Appeal judges, High Court judges, and circuit judges; how many retired judges in each category returned to sit in(a) 1987 and (b) 1988, as deputy judges or ad hoc deputy judges; on how many occasions these judges, on average, have sat as deputies or ad hoc deputies; and what is the rate of pay for such service.

  The Attorney-General
  Court of Appeal and High Court judges retire on the date of their 75th birthdays. Circuit judges retire at the end of the completed year of service in which they attain the age of 72 though their period of full-time service can be extended, with the Lord Chancellor's approval, until they reach 75. In 1987, 43 retired judges sat as deputy circuit judges for a total of 1,868·5 days, five sat as deputy High Court judges for a total of 197 days, and eight sat as deputy Court of Appeal judges for a total of 285 days. In 1988, 32 judges sat as deputy circuit judges for a total of 1,764·5 days, eight sat as deputy High Court judges for a total of 273 days, and seven sat as deputy Court of Appeal judges for a total of 285 days. Deputy Court of Appeal judges are paid £361 per day. Deputy High Court judges are paid £328 per day. Deputy circuit judges are paid £179 per day.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Recycling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 27 July to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire),Official Report, column 815, if he will specify the initiatives taken by his Department's business and environment unit to give more focus to recycling.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department's business and the environment unit, formed in June of this year, is developing a number of initiatives to encourage increasing recycling of industrial residues and household waste. These include presentations to and sponsorship of a series of conferences, seminars and workshops; collaborating in the preparation of primary and secondary school education packs; participating in the "Recycling City" experiment; commissioning a range of recycling research and advisory work; and providing advice on recycling matters to trade associations, individual companies, local authorities, voluntary groups, and the general public. An advisory group, consisting of representatives of a wide range of interests in recycling, has also been established under the unit's chairmanship. It has met once so far.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives he has taken towards the recovery of small-scale batteries for materials recycling;
  13
  and what communications he has with the European Commission on the matter of battery recovery and recycling.

  Mr. Forth
  Battery recycling is an established industry in the United Kingdom, but is almost entirely concentrated upon the larger lead acid and nickel cadmium cells, and the smaller silver oxide and mercury button cells. As part of a collaborative project, Waren Spring laboratory is carrying out research into methods of recovering small consumer batteries from the domestic waste stream. In December 1988, the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive covering batteries and accumulators containing dangerous substan-ces. Negotiations on the proposal have yet to begin but, if adopted, the directive would have implications for battery recovery and recycling in member states.

  EC Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department is participating in the international conference on cost, planning and strategic issues for industry, environmental regulation in the European Community, on 19 and 20 October.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department was not invited to participate in this conference. But DTI representatives will be participating in a number of similar conferences in the next few weeks aimed at raising the level of environmental awareness in business.

  Year

  Site

  Result of Application

  1984

  Tan-y-Gadair, Cadair Idris, Gwynedd

  Order made

  1984

  Llyn Mawr, Powys

  Order made

  1985

  Coedydd a Chorsydd, Aberteifi, Dyfed

  Order made

  1986

  Rallt, Cors Erddreiniog, Gwynedd

  Order made

  1986

  Clegir Mawr, Y Werthyr, Gwynedd

  Application refused

  1987

  Llandegla Moor, Clwyd

  Application refused

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Servants (Promotion)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make it his policy that promotion to senior grades in the civil service will be contingent upon working outwith the south-east area of England for a reasonable period during the course of the officers' careers.

  Mr. Luce
  No. Promotion to all grades in the Civil Service is on merit. This takes account of experience and other relevant factors. Senior staff are mobile grades and can be obliged to work in any location.

THE ARTS

  Funding (Glasgow)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he is allocating any additional funds to the city of Glasgow to use during its year as European city of culture.

  Mr. Luce
  I announced in Glasgow on 18 October last year that I had decided to show my appreciation of that

  CFCs
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if during the meeting of the Council of EEC Industry Ministers in Brussels on 26 September, he raised the issue of environmental protection and implications of European industrial policy for the environment; and if any initiatives were taken on the industrial dismantlement of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigerators.

  Mr. Forth
  No. However, there is close liaison between my Department and the Department of the Environment to ensure that the implications for the environment of measures affecting business and enterprise are fully taken into account in discussions between EC Ministers on all appropriate occasions. My Department has also commissioned a major study into the options for recovering, recycling and destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the United Kingdom. The study, which will consider, among other things, the recovery of CFCs from industrial and domestic refrigerators, is due to be completed early next year.

WALES

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each year since 1981 the applications received by his Department from the Nature Conservancy Council for orders under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, showing those which resulted in such an order.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  city's efforts in preparing for its year as European city of culture 1990 by a special Government contribution of £0·5 million, spread over two years.

  Museums Year
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps his Department has taken to ensure the effective promotion of 1989 as Museums Year.

  Mr. Luce
  Museums Year is the initiative of the Museums Association in its centenary year. I strongly support this celebration of our museums and was pleased to join the Museums Association at its centenary conference held in York in September. I am delighted that., in the course of this year, my Department, the Museums and Galleries Commission, and the Museums Association. are working together on a number of initiatives including, the creation and development of the Museums Training Institute.

  Museums and Galleries (Maintenance)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much money is being provided in the current year for the repair and maintenance of museums and galleries; and how much was provided five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Luce
  This year's provision for building and maintenance at the 11 national museums and galleries which I sponsor is £48 million. In 1979–80 the provision was £14 million and in 1984–85 it was £28 million.

  North West Arts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of North West Arts to discuss the level of arts funding in the north-west.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not met the chairman of North West Arts to discuss funding.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss the funding of the council.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Arts Council on a regular basis to discuss matters of mutual interest. The last meeting was on 10 October.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Carl Bridgewater (Murder Inquiry)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands asking him to name the two officers who were involved in the Carl Bridgewater murder inquiry who have been disciplined in the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the basis of whichwarrant issued in Hong Kong in 1985 the request for the extradition of Lorrain Osman under the Fugitive Offenders Act proceeded; and whether that warrant was exhibited to him or to Bow Street magistrates in pursuance of the authority to proceed or the issue of the provisional arrest warrant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The matters referred to are the subject of judicial review proceedings which opened in the divisional court on 4 October 1989.

  Genocide
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may(a) males and (b) females have been (i) charged and (ii) found guilty of an offence under section 1 of the Genocide Act 1969 in each year since 1969.

  Mr. John Patten
  No persons have been prosecuted under the Genocide Act 1969.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to review the Genocide Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.
  16
  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to do so.

  Cruelty to Animals
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) males and (b) females were (i) charged and (ii) convicted of cruelty to animals in 1987 and 1988 and to date in 1989.

  Mr. John Patten
  For information relating to 1987, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to his question on 26 October 1988 at columns 266–68. Information for 1988 and 1989 is not yet available.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has any plans to review the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the implementation of the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received no representations about the implementation of the Act since it came into force, and my right hon. Friend has at present no plans to review it.

  Armed Robbery
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were(a) charged and (b) convicted of armed robbery in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  There is no specific category of armed robbery. However on the information available centrally, it is estimated that in 1987 there were 470 persons found guilty of robbery where a firearms offence was involved. Similar estimates for prosecutions are not possible. Information for 1988 is not yet available.

  Parental Responsibility
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing legislation to require parents to be responsible for the actions of their children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since March this year we have received 111 letters in favour of strengthening the legal responsibilities of parents for their children's behaviour and 13 against. In the light of the comments we have received, we are considering what changes to propose.

  Devon Emergency Volunteers
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit the Devon emergency volunteers to convey his congratulations on their contribution to civil defence during the past 21 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to visit the Devon emergency volunteers, but we recognise and welcome most warmly the valuable contribution which they, and other volunteers, make to their local communities.

  Criminal injuries Compensation
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to resolve cases
  17
  submitted to it; if there are any plans to reduce the period between the submission of a claim and payment of compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information in this form is not available, but the percentage of cases resolved by the board within certain periods of registration is shown in paragraph 6 of its latest annual report (Cm 536), a copy of which is in the Library.

  To speed up the processing of claims, the board's staff complement has been increased from 220 in 1987 to 320 now. A new office opened in Glasgow, which houses two thirds of the board's staff, and is now fully operational.

  The board is reviewing its administrative procedures with the aim of reducing the time taken to resolve applications.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests he has received for increases in the manpower of the Dyfed-Powys police in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Years in which applications made

  Posts applied for

  1975–76

  50

  1979–80

  18

  1986–87

  1

  Each of these applications was approved in full.

  Condoms (Prisons)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he now has any plans to introduce a scheme whereby condoms would be made available to inmates in prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no such plan.

  Soliciting
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide that the possession of condoms cannot be used as evidence in the prosecution of women for soliciting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is for the courts to decide what constitutes relevant and admissible evidence in any particular case.

  Life Prisoners
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many discretionary life sentence prisoners have been given knockbacks by the parole board beyond their judicial tariff.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not maintained in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many discretionary life sentence prisoners have been released by the tariff date set by the judiciary.
  18
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None of the discretionary life sentence prisoners whose tariffs have been set on the advice of the judiciary following the Handscomb judgment in March 1987 has yet been released.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many discretionary life sentence prisoners have been considered by parole boards since the Handscomb judgment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the divisional court judgmeni in the Handscomb case on 2 March 1987, the Parole Board has considered 368 cases of discretionary life sentence prisoners.

  Re-unite
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the application for funding from Re-unite made on 9 March.

  Mr. John Patten
  A response to their funding application has now been sent to Re-unite, making a formal grant offer. I have written to my hon. Friend.

  "Let's Crack Crime"
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many copies of his Department's booklet "Let's Crack Crime" have been distributed.

  Mr. John Patten
  Nearly 2·5 million copies of the first and second editions of the Home Office crime prevention handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" have been distributed in England and Wales. The third edition will be published shortly.

  Gloucestershire (Burglaries)
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will report on the most recent figures for burglary in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the 12-month period ended 30 June 1989, notifiable offences of burglary in Gloucestershire decreased by almost 15 per cent. compared with the previous 12 months. This information is published in table 7 of Home Office statistical bulletin 7/89 and in a subsequent table; copies of both are in the Library.

  Concessionary Television licences
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the representations he has received regarding the further restrictions on the availability of the concessionary television licence fee for pensioners.

  Mr. Renton
  Since the changes in the regulations in May 1988, we have received visits from four hon. Members1, and 311 letters, 168 of them from hon. Members, about aspects of the concessionary TV licensing system. The nature of each is not separately recorded, but the main points raised were whether the scheme should be extended to ordinary housing, the treatment of new residents of schemes which no longer qualified and whether the circumstances of individual housing schemes fitted the new regulations.

  19
  1 The figure of five hon. Members given in the answer of 3 July 1989 at column 19 to the question from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was unfortunately incorrect, and I am writing to the hon. Member.

  Turkish Kurds
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Turkish Kurds have been granted asylum in 1989.

  Mr. Renton
  We do not keep separate statistics of the ethnic origins of asylum seekers but the great majority of the Turkish nationals who have sought asylum here are of Kurdish origin. Seventy-one Turkish nationals have been granted refugee status so far in 1989, and a further 243 have been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. Decisions have yet to be reached on the majority of the 3,500 applications for asylum made by Turkish nationals who arrived in May and June.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to reduce the number of convicted persons held in prison where the crime for which they were sentenced did not involve violence or illegal entry.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are developing further the ideas for encouraging greater use of community penalties in the Green Paper "Punishment Custody and the Community" (Cm 424). We have already taken steps to reduce the number of young adults in custody. We have issued national standards for community service orders. By ensuring that community service is rigorous and demanding, we hope to encourage its use for offenders who might otherwise receive a custodial sentence.

  Broadcasting
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the summary of the 3,000 responses he received to the White paper, "Broadcasting in the '90s Competition, Choice and Quality", with particular reference to responses to paragraph 6.17, the allocation of television franchises through the highest tender method.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend placed in the Library on 21 April a list of the main organisations which submitted comments on the broadcasting White Paper which he announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) at column 342. I regret that the further information sought would involve a fresh analysis of more than 3,000 submissions and could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Conservative Conference
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources were made available for policing and security at the 1989 Conservative conference at Blackpool.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The additional costs of policing the Conservative party conference at Blackpool will be met by the Lancashire police authority. Under the normal police 20
  funding arrangements, the Government contribute both directly through police grant—which is at 51 per cent.—and indirectly through block grant.

  I understand from the chief constable of Lancashire that the additional costs including related security measures, are estimated to be £1·08 million.

  The Conservative party, like other political parties, also incurs costs on specific security measures at its conference.

  Immigration Enforcement
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were removed from the United Kingdom in 1988 as a result of immigration enforcement powers; and what was the figure five years ago.

  Mr. Renton
  In 1988, a total of 3,046 persons were removed from the United Kingdom under the enforcement powers in the Immigration Act 1971, either as illegal entrants or under the deportation process. The corresponding figure for 1983 was 1,196. More detailed information is published in tables 23 and 24 of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1988" (Cm. 726), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are plans to link the vehicle and name indices of the police national computer so that the name extracted from the vehicle index could automatically search the names index; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no present plans for such a project.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the trend in the use of the names indices of the police national computer; what are the reasons for the changes in frequency of use; and what steps his Department takes to ensure that each access to the names index is for a bona fide police purpose.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of accesses to the names indices of the police national computer increased by 13·87 per cent. between 1986 and 1987 and by 12·23 per cent. between 1987 and 1988.

  The reasons for individual inquiries are not monitored centrally. This is a matter for chief officers of police, who are also responsible for ensuring that inquiries are made only for appropriate police purposes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will describe the purpose of the extremists crime index of the police national computer; if he will define the circumstances when information is added to the index; and if he will list the items of data held within the index.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The purpose of the index is to assist the police in the detection of crimes which might have a political, religious, social or environmental motive. It can be updated only by the Metropolitan police and accessed by a limited number of terminals in regional crime intelligence offices. The index contains the following data items:

  Crime description

  Date and time of crime

  21

  Modus operandi

  Property value and description (if applicable)

  Suspect details (if applicable)

  Vehicle registration mark, value and description (if applicable)

  Forensic and pathology data (if applicable)

  Asylum Seekers (Turkey)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest available figures for asylum seekers from Turkey who have arrived since 18 January who have(a) been returned to Turkey, (b) interviewed but held in detention, (c) given temporary asylum for up to one year, (d) given leave to remain for more than one year and (e) granted refugee status.

  Mr. Renton
  The information is not available in the form requested. From the beginning of January up until the introduction of a visa requirement for Turkish nationals on 23 June some 3,900 Turkish nationals claimed asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom. As at 11 October, 34 have been refused asylum and returned to Turkey. On 11 October. nine remained in detention, all of whom had been interviewed. There is no status of temporary asylum, but temporary admission pending consideration of their claims was granted to all those who were not detained. Exceptional leave to remain, initially for 12 months, has been granted in 243 cases. A total of 71 have been recognised as refugees under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees and granted four years leave to remain initially. A total of 229 have returned voluntarily to Turkey before examination of their cases was completed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from non-statutory organisations concerning their call for resources to assist Kurdish asylum seekers; what response he has given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Representations have been received from a number of Church, community and voluntary organisations seeking among other things financial assistance for emergency reception arrangements for Turkish asylum seekers who arrived in the United Kingdom in May and June. Exceptional payments to reimburse some of the expenses incurred have been made to most non-statutory organisations which assisted; a few others remain under consideration and will he settled shortly.

  Parking Enforcement
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet considered the conclusions of the parking enforcement working party; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) on 27 July 1989 at column 799.

  Edinburgh International Television Festival
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representatives of his Department attended sessions of the Edinburgh international television festival.
  22
  Mr.Renton:
  One

  Acid House Party, Rickmansworth
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire on the policing of an acid house party at Stochers Farm, Rickmansworth on 2 September and of the number of persons arrested and charged with an offence and the number of police officers deployed; and what policy guidance he is giving on the policing of such events with a view to maintaining the peace in the interests of local residents in the areas in which such parties take place.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of Hertfordshire that a total of 36 people were arrested in connection with the event, one of whom was subsequently charged. The number of police officers deployed was 120. We welcome the vigorous action which the police have taken to deal with events of this kind. My right hon. Friend will shortly be discussing with chief officers of police the policing of these parties and the problems to which they have given rise.

  Roskill Inquiry
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to implement the recommendation of the Roskill inquiry that fraud cases should no longer be tried before a jury.

  Mr. John Patten
  We want to give the reforms introduced by the Criminal Justice Acts 1987 and 1988, which were designed to make the jury's task easier, a chance to prove their worth before we consider the recommendation further.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained under Immigration Act powers for a period of more than two months on completion of a custodial sentence during 1988.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 28 July 1989]: Eleven.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) single entry and (b) multiple entry visit visas were (1) received, (2) granted and (3) refused at each post in the Indian sub-continent, Ghana, Nigeria and Jamaica in each quarter of 1988 and the first quarter of 1989; and what was the delay between application and interview for those whose applications were felt to need a second or long interview at each of the above posts in (i) June 1988, (ii) January 1989 and (iii) June 1989 or the nearest available date.

  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1054]: Information on applications in Jamaica for a visit entry clearance, and separate information on applications in the other countries for single entry and multiple entry visas, are not available centrally. The other information requested is given in the tables.

  23

  TABLE 1

  Persons applying for a visit visa to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Applications

  Post

  Newly received1

  Granted2

  Refuse initially

  Dhaka 1988

  1st quarter

  2,020

  1,410

  380

  2nd quarter

  3,030

  2,380

  450

  3rd quarter

  2,830

  2,100

  540

  4th quarter

  2,450

  1,690

  560

  Year

  10,320

  7,580

  1,940

  1989

  1st quarter

  2,130

  1,590

  420

  New Delhi 1988

  1st quarter

  7,120

  5,740

  800

  2nd quarter

  15,270

  13,360

  1,140

  3rd quarter

  11,360

  9,380

  1,400

  4th quarter

  7,160

  5,720

  1,110

  Year

  40,910

  34,200

  4,450

  1989

  1st quarter

  8,160

  6,600

  1,040

  Bombay 1988

  1st quarter

  6,650

  6,230

  260

  2nd quarter

  17,050

  16,330

  320

  3rd quarter

  10,960

  10,210

  450

  4th quarter

  5,850

  5,360

  400

  Year

  40,500

  38,130

  1,430

  1989

  1st quarter

  7,290

  6,850

  460

  Calcutta 1988

  1st quarter

  880

  850

  20

  2nd quarter

  2,810

  2,790

  40

  3rd quarter

  2,220

  2,190

  40

  4th quarter

  1,00

  970

  20

  Year

  6,910

  6,800

  110

  1989

  1st quarter

  1,110

  1,090

  20

  Madras 1988

  1st quarter

  1,300

  1,280

  10

  2nd quarter

  3,120

  3,080

  20

  3rd quarter

  2,740

  2,720

  30

  4th quarter

  1,230

  1,210

  20

  Year

  8,390

  8,290

  80

  1989

  1st quarter

  1,830

  1,780

  30

  Islamabad 1988

  1st quarter

  5,650

  4,000

  1,480

  2nd quarter

  10,190

  8,320

  1,910

  3rd quarter

  9,030

  7,230

  1,780

  4th quarter

  5,410

  3,800

  1,440

  Year

  30,270

  23,350

  6,620

  24

  Applications

  Post

  Newly received1

  Granted2

  Refuse initially

  1989

  1st quarter

  6,130

  4,700

  1,240

  Karachi 1988

  1st quarter

  4,000

  3,310

  450

  2nd quarter

  10,360

  8,330

  850

  3rd quarter

  6,820

  5,940

  710

  4th quarter

  4,330

  3,640

  690

  Year

  25,510

  21,220

  2,600

  1989

  1st quarter

  4,200

  3,570

  480

  Accra 1988

  1st quarter

  1,430

  1,180

  160

  2nd quarter

  2,320

  2,010

  200

  3rd quarter

  4,100

  3,530

  280

  4th quarter

  2,110

  1,720

  180

  Year

  9,970

  8,440

  820

  1989

  1st quarter

  2,390

  1,930

  270

  Lagos 1988

  1st quarter

  9,430

  8,380

  710

  2nd quarter

  11,750

  10,590

  700

  3rd quarter

  17,490

  13,940

  1,190

  4th quarter

  11,820

  8,940

  1,550

  Year

  50,490

  41,860

  4,160

  1989

  1st quarter

  9,190

  6,240

  1,410

  Kaduna 1988

  1st quarter

  1,470

  1,280

  120

  2nd quarter

  1,730

  1,550

  110

  3rd quarter

  2,250

  2,020

  140

  4th quarter

  1,460

  1,220

  210

  Year

  6,910

  6,060

  580

  1989

  1st quarter

  1,070

  880

  140

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal.

  Table 2

  Wailing time for persons applying for a visit visa who required a lengthy interview

  Number of days

  Waiting time for person interviewed at end of period

  Post

  June 1988

  January 1989

  June 1989

  Dhaka

  —

  —

  —

  New Delhi

  —

  —

  —

  Bombay

  14

  —

  —

  Calcutta

  —

  —

  —

  Madras

  — or 1

  — or 1

  — or 1

  Islamabad

  1

  1

  7

  Karachi

  7

  —

  —

  Accra

  10

  16

  . .

  25

  Waiting time for person interviewed at end of period

  Post

  June 1988

  January 1989

  June 1989

  Lagos

  1

  1

  1

  Kaduna

  —

  —

  —

  — = same day.

  . . = not available centrally.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the

  Home Department how many applications for entry clearance in order to seek asylum in the United Kingdom were (a) received and (b) granted by country during 1988 and the first quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1054]: Information on applications for refugee status in the United Kingdom made abroad is given in the following table:

  Applications for refugee status in the United Kingdom received by British posts abroad and referred to the Home Office for decision1, and grants of refugee status, by nationality(provisional estimates2)

  Number of persons

  Applications received

  Grants of refugee status3

  Nationality

  1988

  First quarter 1989

  1988

  First quarter 1989

  Angola

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Colombia

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Czechoslovakia

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  5

  *

  *

  *

  Ghana

  *

  —

  5

  —

  India

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Iran

  25

  —

  15

  *

  Iraq

  5

  5

  *

  5

  Libya

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  5

  —

  *

  —

  Romania

  5

  *

  —

  —

  Seychelles

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  —

  *

  —

  *

  Sri Lanka

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Syria

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Turkey

  15

  *

  —

  5

  Uganda

  10

  5

  —

  —

  Zaire

  —

  *

  —

  —/

  Nationality uncertain

  *

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  80

  15

  25

  5

  1 In addition some applications for refugee status in the United Kingdom, made in India by nationals of Afghanistan, were processed locally by the British High Commission in New Delhi. 1,725 such applications were received in 1988 and 5 in the first quarter of 1989. No grants of refugee status were made during this time; 1,200 applications were awaiting a decision at the end of March 1989.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with '*' = 1 or 2.

  3 Grants in the time periods shown do not necessarily relate to applications made in those periods.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding immigration 26
  applications there are at Lunar house; what time savings in dealing with applications from (a) students, (b) family members in the United Kingdom applying for variation of stay, (c) settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts and (d) asylum-seekers have been achieved by recent changes in procedures and practice; and what are the average times applicants in each category might expect to wait before a decision.

  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1055]: At the end of June 1989, there were 34,800 cases outstanding in the immigration caseworking groups and 9,600 active cases in the refugee and special cases unit.

  A number of changes in procedure and practice have been introduced recently with the aim of reducing the level of outstanding applications and reducing the time taken to process them. Information on the effects of these changes is not available in the form requested.

  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision, for cases decided in caseworking groups and the public inquiry offices, in the second quarter of 1989 was 4·5 months for students and 13·5 months for applicants for refugee status. Information on average waiting times for family members in the United Kingdom for variation of leave and for settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts is not available.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance from(a) wives, (b) husbands, (c) fiances, and (d) fiancees made at British posts in (I) New Delhi, (2) Bombay, (3) Calcutta, (4) Madras, (5) Dhaka, (6) Islamabad, (7) Karachi, and (8) Colombo for each quarter since January 1988 to the nearest available date were (a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused; how many refusals at each post were (i) wholly and (ii) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the primary purpose of the marriage was not immigration; how many refusals at each post were (i) wholly and (ii) partly because the visa officer was not satisfied that the couple could support and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds; what was the refusal rate at each post and what percentage of those refusals were (x) wholly and (y) partly on primary purpose grounds.

  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989 c. 1059]: Information for the Indian sub-continent for the whole of 1988 and, where available, for the fourth quarter of 1988 and first quarter of 1989 is given in the tables. For information for the first three quarters of 1988, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 20 December 1988 at columns 179–82. Where the numbers are small, the figures for individual posts have been combined. Information on refusals which takes account of successful appeals is not compiled for periods shorter than 12 months. Corresponding information for Colombo is not available centrally.
  27

  TABLE 1:

  Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent applying for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom

  Number of persons or percentage

  Husbands

  Fiances

  Wives

  Fiancees

  1988

  1989

  1988

  1989

  1988

  1989

  1988

  1989

  4th qtr

  Year

  1st qtr

  4th qtr

  Year

  1st qtr

  4th qtr

  Year

  1st qtr

  4th qtr

  Year

  1st qtr

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Applications received1

  50

  230

  60

  70

  260

  50

  120

  560

  170

  60

  250

  70

  Applications granted2

  30

  140

  40

  40

  120

  40

  160

  560

  120

  40

  200

  60

  Applications refused initially

  40

  120

  20

  50

  200

  40

  10

  20

  10

  20

  90

  20

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  42

  n/a

  n/a

  60

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  30

  n/a

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Applications received1

  50

  240

  70

  50

  240

  100

  190

  940

  370

  30

  190

  80

  Applications granted2

  40

  220

  50

  50

  170

  40

  230

  1,080

  190

  50

  180

  40

  Applications refused initially

  40

  140

  50

  70

  220

  50

  4

  20

  10

  10

  40

  10

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  34

  n/a

  n/a

  49

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  19

  n/a

  Dhaka

  Applications received1

  60

  280

  90

  4

  20

  4

  270

  1,300

  250

  4

  20

  20

  Applications granted2

  40

  110

  60

  4

  10

  4

  380

  1,290

  560

  10

  20

  10

  Applications refused initially

  30

  100

  60

  4

  10

  4

  70

  270

  70

  4

  4

  4

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  44

  n/a

  n/a

  63

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  n/a

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Applications received1

  300

  1,390

  460

  100

  670

  110

  580

  2,770

  920

  40

  230

  40

  Applications granted2

  110

  340

  140

  50

  210

  50

  650

  2,610

  750

  70

  250

  80

  Applications refused initially

  230

  560

  320

  200

  510

  260

  30

  110

  40

  4

  20

  10

  Refusal rate (percentage)3

  n/a

  60

  n/a

  n/a

  68

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  n/a

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed

  2 Granted initially or on appeal

  3 Applications refused, after taking account of successful appeals, as a percentage of applications decided

  4 = 5 or fewer

  n/a = not available

  TABLE 2

  Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent refused' entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom in 1988

  Number of persons or percentage

  Number refused because couple could not accommodate and/or maintain themselves without recourse to public funds:

  Number refused because primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom:

  Primary purpose refusals as a percentage of all refusals:

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason

  Solely on primary purpose grounds

  Partly on primary purpose grounds

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Husbands

  10

  10

  90

  10

  85

  9

  Fiances

  5

  10

  150

  30

  79

  15

  Wives

  5

  5

  10

  5

  53

  5

  Fiancees

  5

  10

  30

  20

  30

  25

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Husbands

  4

  5

  100

  5

  90

  3

  Fiances

  5

  10

  150

  10

  90

  54

  Wives

  5

  4

  10

  4

  48

  4

  Fiancees

  5

  5

  20

  5

  49

  5

  Dhaka

  Husbands

  5

  20

  60

  20

  67

  22

  Fiances

  4

  5

  10

  5

  2100

  210

  Wives

  10

  10

  10

  10

  6

  4

  Fiancees

  4

  4

  5

  4

  3

  3

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Husbands

  4

  190

  300

  190

  58

  37

  Fiances

  5

  130

  300

  130

  67

  29

  Wives

  5

  5

  5

  5

  6

  1

  Fiancees

  5

  5

  5

  5

  229

  27

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  10

  220

  540

  220

  67

  27

  Fiances

  10

  150

  610

  170

  75

  21

  28

  29

  Number refused because couple could not accommodate and/or maintain themselves without recourse to public funds:

  Number refused because primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom:

  Primary purpose refusals as a percentage of all refusals:

  Solely for these reasons

  Partly for these reasons

  Solely for this reason

  Partly for this reason

  Solely on primary purpose grounds

  partly on primary purpose grounds

  Wives

  20

  10

  40

  10

  12

  3

  Fiancees

  5

  20

  50

  20

  36

  17

  1 After taking account of successful appeals.

  2 Percentage based on fewer than 15 applications refused.

  3 Percentage not calculated for 5 or fewer applications refused.

  4 Nil.

  55 or fewer.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for settlement by wives and children in (i) Dhaka and (ii) Islamabad were(a) received, (b) granted, (c) refused, (d) deferred at first interview, (e) lapsed and (f) outstanding and awaiting first interview for each quarter since the beginning of 1988.

  Wives and children applying for entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom1

  Post

  Applications

  Newly received

  Granted2

  Refused initially

  Referred or de-ferred3

  Withdrawn or lapsed

  Awaiting first interview at end of period

  Dhaka

  1988 4th quarter

  1,490

  1,780

  420

  490

  400

  3,500

  1989 1st quarter

  1,410

  2,220

  470

  780

  470

  2,600

  Islamabad

  1988 4th quarter

  860

  890

  90

  840

  90

  2,100

  1989 1st quarter

  1,200

  1,110

  90

  840

  170

  2,100

  1 Including persons considered for a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom

  2 Granted initially or on appeal

  3 Referred to Home Office for decision or deferred for further inquiries.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting for special quota vouchers in (i) India and (ii) East Africa in(a) May 1988 and (b) December 1988; when those issued with vouchers on those dates had applied; how many vouchers were issued in (i) India and (ii) East Africa in (a)

  Table 1. Persons applying for a special voucher for entry to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Country

  Applications1 newly received

  Vouchers issued

  Applications awaiting decision at end of month

  1988

  1989 1st Qtr

  1988

  1989 1st Qtr

  May 1988

  December 1988

  India

  400

  80

  600

  140

  1,800

  1,700

  Kenya

  330

  120

  300

  50

  550

  520

  Tanzania

  50

  10

  40

  10

  170

  60

  Malawi

  40

  10

  80

  10

  40

  20

  Zambia

  110

  20

  140

  10

  40

  20

  Elsewhere

  50

  10

  10

  +

  +

  10

  Total

  980

  240

  1,170

  220

  2,600

  2,300

  + = 5 or fewer

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn or lapsed.

  30
  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, of 28 July 1989. c. 1060]: Information for the fourth quarter of 1988 onwards is given in the table; for information for the first three quarters of 1988, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 20 December 1988 at columns 179–80.

  1988 and (b) the first quarter of 1989; when those applying can now expect to receive vouchers; and how many applicants there were for vouchers in (i) India and (ii) East Africa in (a) 1988 and (b) the first half of 1989.

  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1063]: The information which is currently available is given in the tables:

  31

  Table 2. Waiting times for persons applying for a special voucher

  Months

  Country

  Waiting time to main interview for

  Persons interviewed at end of month

  Persons ap-plying at end of month1

  May 1988

  December 1988

  June 1989

  India2

  84

  72

  24

  Kenya

  2½

  2

  2

  Tanzania

  1

  1

  1½

  Malawi

  —

  ¾

  ½

  Zambia

  1

  1

  31

  1 Data relate to expected waiting times.

  2 Data relate to non-priority applicants. Priority applicants (ie. widows with a child in the United Kingdom, heads of household aged 65 or over, and special compassionate cases) are interviewed within three months.

  3 Estimated.

HEALTH

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding was made available for the running of family practitioner committees in 1988–89; and what sum has been agreed for 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  The funding made available for the running of family practitioner committees for these two financial years is as follows:

  Revenue £

  Capital £

  1988–89

  55,735,000

  3,278,000

  1989–90

  64,417,000

  5,505,000

  Prescribing Budgets
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library PACT data aggregated at family practitioner level.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans to do so. We are, however, considering what statistical information to make available to the House routinely in connection with the indicative prescribing budget scheme.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has held, and what action he proposes, relating to his implementation of section 8 of working paper No. 4 concerning budgets for prescribing by general practitioners.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I continue to invite discussions with all interested parties on the operation of indicative drug budgets for general practitioners and I issued working paper No. 4 in order to stimulate such discussions. I held a useful discussion with representatives of the British Medical Association on 27 September at which I repeated and they accepted by assurance that the arrangements for managing the indicative prescribing budget scheme will not infringe in any way the right of a general practitioner to prescribe all those medicines which individual patients might need.

  As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 24 July at
  32
  column 540, a new prescribing budgets information system to implement prescribing budgets is being developed at the Prescription Pricing Authority. The system will be piloted in November 1990.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current instructions he has given to family practitioner committees in respect of abnormal volumes or cost of prescribing by any of its contractor general practitioners; and in how many cases in 1988 any such matter was drawn to the attention of the relevant local medical committee.

  Mr. Mellor
  No guidance has yet been issued to family practitioner committees on this issue, as they do not assume the responsibility of monitoring prescribing by individual general medical practitioners until April 1990. It is not current practice to refer cases of over-prescribing to local medical committees. A new procedure for handling such cases at FPC level will be introduced as part of the implementation of the NHS review.

  Registered Nurses (Mental Health)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements have been made to protect the pay, conditions, training opportunities, career prospects, continuity of service and pension rights in the short, medium and long term of those staff possessing the registered nurse mental health qualification who transfer from health authority to local authority employment as a result of implementation of Government proposals concerning care in the community; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he is considering concerning the standardisation of the registered nurse mental health qualifications held by employees of health authorities and the certificate of social services held by employees of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our detailed proposals for the future organisation and funding of community care will be published in the forthcoming White Paper. The issues we are considering include the implications for staff who transfer from health authority to local authority employment. A number of certificate in social services schemes now contain an element of joint training leading to the award of both the certificate in social services and entry to part V of the UKCC Register of nurses trained in the nursing of persons suffering from mental handicap. The proposed introduction of the diploma in social work, which will replace both the certificate in social services and the certificate of qualification in social work is expected to increase further the opportunities for joint training.

  Self-Governing Unit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be his Department's expenditure on its self-governing unit in the present financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The self-governing hospitals unit is part of the Department of Health's regional liaison division. The budget for the unit for the financial year 1989–90 is about £210,000 for staff and travel and subsistence.

  Convalescent Care
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce national guidelines on the provision of convalescent care.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Dental Auxiliaries
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current claim before committee H of the Whitley council on the pay of dental auxiliary staff.

  Mr. Mellor
  The staff side of committee H of the Professional and Technical Staffs B Whitley Council has accepted an increase of 6·5 per cent. for dental auxiliaries effective from 1 July 1989.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the change in pay in real terms of a senior dental surgery assistant aged 21 in every year since 1980, expressing the pay level for 1980 as 100.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not available in precisely the form requested. The available information is given in the table which shows both the minimum and the maximum paypoints of the relevant basic pay scale for each year, deflated by the RPI, and expressed as an index with 1980 as 100. Information on total earnings is not available centrally.

  Senior Dental Surgery Assistant

  Year

  Minimum of basic pay scale (real terms)

  Maximum of basic pay scale (real terms)

  1980

  100

  100

  1981

  96

  96

  1982

  93

  93

  1983

  93

  93

  1984

  94

  94

  1985

  92

  92

  1986

  95

  95

  1987

  96

  95

  1988

  96

  96

  1989

  95

  94

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of annual turnover of dental auxiliaries in the hospital service and the community dental service.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Calibre Cassette Library
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will restore the Government grant to the Calibre cassette library for the blind and handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  Calibre received funding under our section 64 scheme of grants from 1976 until 1984 when a three-year tapering grant ended. We have since received no further application for funding.

  Any new application for funding from Calibre will receive careful consideration. However, as their activity relates to the provision of a library, rather than a health or social service, it is very unlikely that their application would meet our criteria for grants under the section 64 scheme.

  Autistic Children (Avon)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the numbers of autistic children in Avon aged between two and 16 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on which such an estimate could be based is not held centrally or routinely collected locally.

  Regional and District Health Authorities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the numbers of members of regional and district health authorities in England and Wales who are currently(a) directly appointed by him, (b) appointed by his appointees and (c) appointed by elected statutory bodies; and what will be the comparable numbers for regional and district health authorities and new bodies after implementation of his current proposals.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend is presently responsible for the appointment of 234 members of regional health authorities in England. The majority of members of English district health authorities, 2,348, are appointed by regional health authorities with a smaller number, 862, appointed by local authorities.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, my right hon. and learned Friend will appoint the five non-executive members of each RHA and up to three non-executive directors of each NHS hospital trust. The relevant RHA will appoint the five non-executive members of each DHA and at least two non-executive directors of each NHS hospital trust.

  Each RHA and DHA will have up to five executive members. Of these, the general manager will be appointed by the chairman and the non-executive members; and the remainder by the chairman and the non-executive members acting with the general manager. NHS hospital trusts will have up to five executive directors. Of these, the general manager will be appointed by the chairman and non-executive directors, and the remainder by the chairman and non-executive directors acting with the general manager.

  The appointment of members of DHAs in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Rats
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action does he expect to take to combat rat infestations within the system of public sewers; and what action he requires of district health authorities to monitor rodent control within their respective areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  Local authorities are responsible under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 for ensuring that their areas, including sewers, are kept as free as practicable from rats and mice. District health authorities are not required to monitor rodent control within their areas.

  Accounting Staff
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the total numbers of additional accounting staff which will be needed, and of
  35
  what numbers will need specific qualifications, to operate his proposals for cost comparison within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is a matter for health authorities themselves to determine their staffing needs and additional needs in relation to finance activities, including costing and contracting, following the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients".

  The National Health Service management executive has made available £9·87 million in this financial year to strengthen the finance function in health authorities, units and hospitals in support of the White Paper proposals which require strong financial management—for example, developing contracts, capital charges and self-governing hospitals. In addition, £1·66 million is being spent this year on a training programme for finance staff targeted at the new skills needed. The National Health Service management executive will be discussing future finance staff resource needs with regions at the end of the year.

  Lowermoor
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposals to set up an independent panel of scientists to consider water pollution-related incidents in the light of Dame Barbara Clayton's report on the Lowermoor incident.

  Mr. Freeman
  As I wrote to the hon. Member on 21 August, I will make an announcement at the earliest possible moment.

  Blood Supplies
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the National Blood Transfusion Service has taken to ensure that all blood supplied through the service is free of the HIV-2 virus, as well as the HIV-1 virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since August 1983 potential donors have been given a leaflet which asks those at risk of HIV infection not to give blood.

  In addition, since June 1988 samples from donors who have visited those countries where HIV-2 is more common have been tested for antibodies to HIV-2. The need for testing on a wider basis is kept under constant review in the light of the test results and any new developments.

  All blood donations have been tested for antibodies to HIV 1 since October 1985.

  Autistic Children
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he provides for the diagnosis and statementing of autistic children for pre-nursery entry.

  Mr. Freeman
  Recent guidance on the procedures involved in the assessment and statementing of children with special educational needs has just been issued jointly by my Department and the Department of Education and Science. This guidance covers children under five, including autistic children. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library. [DH circular HN (89) 20 and DES circular 22/89].

  Bed Closures
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will tabulate the number of beds in hospitals of each regional health authority that have been closed in 1989 to a recent convenient date, and not yet reopened by virtue of shortage of funds; and what action he expects to take to ensure that they reopen in the remainder of 1989 or during 1990.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold information on temporary closures and the reasons for them. It is for health authorities to decide when such measures are necessary. Temporary closures may be made for a number of reasons other than financial ones, for example, for building repairs or redecoration.

  District Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what calculations he has made concerning the approxim-ate overall percentage of increased costs between the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90 borne by district health authorities in respect of the commodities, services, and other costs, adjusted by weight of expenditure; if he will publish such calculations; and what changes in grant calculations he expects to make in respect of their costs for the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  Price increases experienced by health authorities are measured using the Health Service prices index. Our estimate is that the rise in the index this year over 1988–89 will be about 5·7 per cent.

  Health authority allocations for 1990–91 will be announced later this year after decisions on public expenditure for next year have been made.

  Patients' Records
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to guarantee the confidentiality of patients' records stored in computers, in the light of the British Medical Association's report stating that doctors cannot guarantee their confidentiality.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The British Medical Association has frequently pressed the view that the Data Protection Act 1984 whose provisions were implemented in November 1987 puts in jeopardy the confidentiality of patients' health information held on computers.

  The Data Protection Act in fact underlines the need for confidentiality of personal information and reinforces the policy long followed in the NHS that patients' records are confidential and staff face disciplinary action in the event of such confidence being breached.

  AIDS
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) under what powers he can limit foreign AIDS patients from coming to the United Kingdom for free treatment; and under what circumstances he uses those powers;

  (2) whether he will investigate the prevalence amongst foreign AIDS patients of coming to the United Kingdom for treatment for (a) medical and (b) personal reasons, setting out those personal reasons.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 27 July 1989]: The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors)

  37
  Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1987 provide that an overseas visitor is exempt from charges for NHS hospital treatment for HIV infection only in relation to initial diagnostic testing and associated counselling. Such a visitor would have to pay charges in the usual way for any subsequent hospital treatment whether as an inpatient or an outpatient. Health authorities are required to make such charges in every case. The question of limiting entry to the United Kingdom is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.

  We have no plans to investigate the reasons why AIDS patients come to this country for treatment and know of no reason to do so. We are satisfied that the present charging arrangements are a reasonable response to the situation.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of people entitled to free prescriptions at 31 March 1988, and what is the corresponding figure for the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 28 July 1989]: It is estimated that the number of people entitled to free prescriptions at 31 March 1988 was 23·7 million. The corresponding figure for 31 March 1989, the latest date for which information is available, is estimated to have been 23·6 million.

  These figures show that despite some far-reaching changes in the social security system and certain changes in the arrangements for exemption from prescription charges that took effect in April 1988, they had little significant impact upon the total number of people entitled to free prescriptions.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners were under contract to the National Health Service in 1979; how much this cost; and what were the comparable figures in 1988.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of general practitioners now; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 July 1989, c. 669]: In my reply to you on 25 July I quoted figures for 1987 for the cost of general medical services as being £125 million.

  This figure that was quoted was incorrect and should have been £1,250 million.

  Blood
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the profit made by the Blood Transfusion Service on each 1,000 pints of donated blood bought by private sector health institutions; what method is used to determine the price at which blood will be sold to the private sector; how much blood was sold in total for each of the last 10 years to the private sector for all blood groups and the rarest blood groups; what was this as a percentage of total blood donations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 July 1989, column 373]: Figures for units of blood issued to non-NHS hospitals which read 84,361 should have read 80,002.
  38
  The percentage for 1987 which read 4·2 should have read 4·0.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Swindon 2 Tax Office
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis an Inland Revenue official at Swindon 2 tax office communicated information on Suzanne Allen and Yvonne Knight to Swindon police.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 28 July at column 1146.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received against his present policy on interest rate levels from organisations representing the self-employed; and what replies he has sent.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of letters from organisations representing the self-employed. The replies explain that everyone has far more to fear from inflation than from a period of higher interest rates.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any estimate of the additional savings available for investment by leading institutions made available by each 1 per cent. increase in base interest rate.

  Mr. Ryder
  No. Certainly, higher interest rates encourage saving and reduce lending. But it is by no means true that all United Kingdom savings go to lending institutions, nor that lending institutions obtain their funds solely from United Kingdom savers. More generally, mortgage and other credit rationing is not a feature of the present day financial system. Lenders are constrained by the demand for credit at prevailing interest rates. Interest rates represent the price of money and credit, and naturally their demand falls when the price is raised. The relationship is complex, but the direction and the significance of the effect are clear.

  British-Irish Parliamentary Group
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what public funding has been agreed for the proposed British-Irish parliamentary group under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

  Mr. Lawson
  The British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union will receive in 1989–90 a grant in aid of £1,575,000. This is substantially higher than the normal annual grant, as the Estimate included provision for the costs of the recent centenary conference which was hosted by the British group in London.

  It is hoped that the cost in 1989–90 of creating the proposed British-Irish inter-parliamentary body can be met from sums available within this grant. Funding in future years is presently being discussed in the context of the public expenditure survey.

  Incomes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimates of net disposable income for each region of the United Kingdom after taking account of mortgage repayments.

  Mr. Lilley
  The only available regional information on average per capita disposable income after taking account of mortgage repayments is from family expenditure surveys. Data for 1986 and 1987 combined are:

  £per person per week

  North

  64·28

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  66·72

  East Midlands

  67·84

  East Anglia

  69·42

  Greater London

  96·78

  Rest of the South East

  85·68

  South West

  77·48

  West Midlands

  66·27

  North West

  71·27

  Wales

  60·60

  Scotland

  66·30

  Northern Ireland

  56·98

  United Kingdom

  74·16

  Data from the Family Expenditure Survey are subject to sampling variations and, therefore, the results for two years have been combined in order to increase the accuracy. It should be noted that in accordance with FES definitions of disposable income the figures include imputed income from owner occupancy. Furthermore, mortgage repayments, but not payments of rent, have been deducted from the disposable income figures.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants there are at present; and what was the equivalent figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Lawson
  At 1 July 1989, there were 567,073 staff in post in central Government Departments. This informa-tion was published by Her Majesty's Treasury in a press release on 18 September 1989 (No. 72/89). The comparable figure for 1 July 1979 is 723,747.

  Overseas Assets
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the information provided in the reply dated 16 March 1983,Official Report, column 164, concerning the amount of tax collected on income earning and other assets held overseas; and if he will include in the table an estimate for each year of the total value of such assets, whether or not they have been assessed to tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1134]: Income tax charged on investment income received from overseas in the year ending 5 April 1987 and taxed under cases IV and V of schedule D is estimated to be in the region of £80 million before allowing for double taxation relief. The amount of such relief could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income tax deducted from foreign company and public revenue dividends paid by or through United Kingdom paying and collecting agents in the year ended 5 April 1989 amounted to £192 million.
  40
  These figures are, in each case, for the latest available year. Figures for earlier years are not covered by the reply of 16 March 1983 and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. The value of the assets giving rise to these tax charges is not known.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the estimated number and direct revenue cost of wife's earnings elections in a full year by range of incomes at 1989–90 income and tax levels, together with tables for (i) husband and (ii) wives showing (a) the numbers separately assessed by range of total income of the relevant spouse and (b) the aggregate total income of each spouse and the aggregate investment income of each spouse; and if he will add a table showing the additional direct revenue cost on the basis of the 1990–91 proposals for the separate taxation of husbands and wives;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for wives with earned income on Inland Revenue records the estimated distribution of the number of such wives in 1989–90 by wife's total income and the couples' joint total income together with the estimated revenue loss from wife's earnings elections and the estimated further loss on the 1990–91 basis of separate taxation of husbands and wives.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his replies, 28 July 1989, c. 1119–21]: Available estimates at 1989–90 income levels are in the tables. They are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are, therefore, provisional. The distribution of wives earned income for 1988–89 is also given, because previous estimates have been revised. Further estimates by range of investment income and under independent taxation in 1990–91 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Distribution of wives1 Earned Income 1988–89

  Income (lower limit)

  Number of wives with earned income in range

  Number of married couples (with wives earnings) with joint total income2 in range

  £ per annum

  ('000)

  ('000)

  1

  1,760

  110

  2,000

  1,770

  230

  4,000

  1,140

  360

  6,000

  890

  270

  8,000

  370

  330

  10,000

  250

  540

  12,000

  270

  970

  15,000

  130

  1,610

  20,000

  50

  1,520

  30.000

  30

  720

  All ranges

  6,660

  6,660

  1 Excluding some wives with earnings below the PAYE reporting limit and Self-employed wives making a net loss.

  2 Combined income of husband and wife.

  Distribution of wives1 Earned Income 1989–90

  Income (lower limit)

  Number of wives with earned income in range

  Number of married couples (with wives earnings) with joint total income2 in range

  £ per annum

  ('000)

  ('000)

  1

  1,660

  110

  2,000

  1,710

  210

  4,000

  1,060

  340

  6,000

  910

  250

  41

  Income (lower limit)

  Number of wives with earned income in range

  Number of married couples (with wives earnings) with joint total income2 in range

  £ per annum

  ('000)

  ('000)

  8,000

  470

  280

  10,000

  270

  400

  12,000

  310

  810

  15,000

  180

  1,540

  20,000

  80

  1,810

  Wife's Earnings Election 1989–90

  Income (lower limit)

  By range of joint total income of married couple

  By range of wife's earned income

  By range of husband's total income1

  £ per annum

  Number '000

  Cost £ million

  Number '000

  Cost £ million

  Number '000

  Cost £ million

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.000

  —

  —

  65

  10

  —2

  —2

  10,000

  —

  —

  130

  75

  10

  —3

  15,000

  —

  —

  105

  90

  55

  30

  20,000

  —

  —

  65

  110

  175

  135

  30,000

  395

  355

  30

  70

  155

  190

  All ranges

  395

  355

  395

  355

  395

  355

  1 Husband's earned income plus husband and wife's investment income.

  2Less than £1 million or 1,000.

  3Less than £5 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for those above and those below age 65 years the estimated number of tax units and their tax liability in the current financial year in each range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000 divided into single persons and one-earner and two-earner married couples together; and if he will include the number of females within each category and their tax liability;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing for those above and for those below pensionable age, the estimated number of tax units paying income tax and their income tax liability as a proportion of their total income in a full year at 1989–90 rates, by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000 distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples, and if he will add figures showing what

  Number of Tax Units Paying Income Tax and Tax Liability by Range of Total Income, 1989–90 Married Couples with Wife's Earned Income

  Taxpayers Under 65

  Taxpayers Aged 65 and Over

  Total Income(Lower Limit)

  Number of Units Liable to Pay Tax

  Tax Liability

  Tax Liability As a Proportion of Total Income

  Number of Units Liable to Pay Tax

  Tax Liability

  Tax Liability as a Proportion of Total Income

  £ per annum

  (000s)

  (£ million)

  (percentage)

  (000s)

  (£ million)

  (Percentage)

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  (1)

  (2)

  1·6

  —

  —

  —

  5,000

  10

  (2)

  2·7

  10

  (2)

  1·4

  6,000

  20

  10

  3·6

  20

  10

  3·0

  7,000

  40

  10

  3·1

  20

  10

  4·6

  8,000

  90

  40

  5·5

  30

  10

  5·3

  9,000

  80

  50

  5·9

  50

  30

  6·3

  10,000

  290

  240

  7·5

  90

  90

  8·4

  12,000

  730

  970

  9·7

  90

  160

  13·1

  15,000

  1,460

  3,130

  12·3

  100

  260

  15·1

  20,000

  1,690

  6,170

  15·2

  130

  570

  17·8

  30,000

  690

  4,970

  19·6

  60

  520

  23·9

  50,000

  180

  3,850

  28·0

  20

  490

  30·9

  (1)Less than 5,000

  (2)Less then £5 million

  42

  Income (lower limit)

  Number of wives with earned income in range

  Number of married couples (with wives earnings) with joint total income2 in range

  £ per annum

  ('000)

  ('000)

  30,000

  30

  930

  All ranges

  6,680

  6,680

  1Excluding some wives with earnings below the PAYE reporting limit and self-employed wives making and net loss.

  2Combined income of husband and wife.

  effect his proposals for the separate taxation of husbands and wives will have on the numbers of tax units and the proportion paid in tax by (a) one-earner and (b) two-earner married couples.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his replies, 28 July 1989, c. 1119–22]: Available estimates are given in the tables. All estimates are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. Under the present system a married woman's income is treated as her husband's and taxed as if it belonged to him. Separate estimates for single women are provided in the tables.

  Comparable estimates after the introduction of independent taxation of husbands and wives are not available. However, estimates of gains in 1990–91 were included in the Inland Revenue press release "Independent Taxation of Husbands and Wife", published on 15 March 1988.
  43

  Number of tax units paying income tax and tax liability by range of total income, 1989–90 Married couples with wife's earned income

  Taxpayers under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income(lower limit)

  Number of units liable to pay tax

  Tax liability

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income

  Number of units liable to pay tax

  Tax liability

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income

  £ per annum

  (000s)

  (£ million

  (percentage)

  (000s)

  (£ million)

  (Percentage)

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  60

  10

  8·7

  —

  —

  —

  5,000

  150

  40

  4·6

  40

  (1)

  1·0

  6,000

  240

  100

  6·1

  90

  20

  3·9

  7,000

  230

  140

  8·0

  120

  60

  6·9

  8,000

  210

  130

  7·2

  100

  70

  8·2

  9,000

  270

  220

  8·5

  80

  80

  10·3

  10,000

  600

  710

  10·7

  90

  120

  12·3

  12,000

  870

  1,530

  13·0

  90

  190

  16·0

  15,000

  860

  2,220

  15·2

  80

  240

  18·1

  20,000

  560

  2,300

  17·5

  50

  250

  20·5

  30,000

  230

  2,020

  23·3

  30

  300

  26·6

  50,000

  100

  2,610

  31·4

  20

  510

  32·9

  (1) Less than £5 million.

  Number of tax units paying income tax and tax liability by range of total income, 1989–90 Single females

  Taxpayers under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income(lower limit)

  Number of units liable to pay tax

  Tax liability

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income

  Number of units liable to pay tax

  Tax liability

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income

  £ per annum

  000s

  £ million

  percentage

  000s

  £ million

  Percentage

  2,000

  70

  —2

  0·9

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  370

  70

  5·3

  90

  10

  2·0

  4,000

  380

  150

  8·7

  170

  40

  5·4

  5,000

  440

  270

  11·1

  160

  80

  8·7

  6,000

  510

  430

  13·0

  120

  90

  11·2

  7,000

  470

  450

  12·9

  70

  60

  13·0

  8,000

  370

  430

  13·7

  60

  70

  14·3

  9,000

  210

  280

  14·1

  30

  50

  15·5

  10,000

  340

  610

  16·2

  50

  90

  16·7

  12,000

  360

  830

  17·2

  50

  130

  19·5

  15,000

  260

  760

  17·4

  50

  170

  20·8

  20,000

  110

  490

  19·0

  30

  150

  23·3

  30,000

  20

  220

  24·6

  10

  140

  27·8

  50,000

  —1

  110

  33·2

  10

  210

  33·7

  1 Less than 5,000.

  2Less than £5 million.

  Number of tax Units Paying Income Tax and Tax Liability by Range of Total Income, 1989–90 Single Males

  Taxpayers under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income(lower limit)

  Number of units liable to pay tax

  Tax liability

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income

  Number of units liable to pay tax

  Tax liability

  Tax liability as a proportion of total income

  £ per annum

  (000s)

  (£ million)

  (percentage)

  (000s)

  (£ million)

  (Percentage)

  2,000

  70

  (1)

  0·8

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  410

  80

  5·2

  30

  (1)

  2·4

  4,000

  360

  140

  8·8

  50

  10

  5·2

  5,000

  360

  240

  11·8

  50

  20

  9·0

  6,000

  380

  320

  12·9

  50

  40

  11·3

  7,000

  440

  430

  13·0

  40

  40

  13·6

  8,000

  430

  520

  13·9

  30

  40

  14·7

  9,000

  370

  520

  14·7

  10

  20

  15·3

  10,000

  750

  1,320

  16·1

  40

  70

  17·1

  12,000

  680

  1,560

  17·1

  20

  70

  19·6

  15,000

  430

  1,270

  17·1

  20

  70

  20·5

  20,000

  230

  1,000

  18·3

  20

  110

  22·0

  30,000

  70

  550

  23·1

  10

  70

  27·8

  50,000

  20

  700

  31·7

  10

  220

  34·6

  (1) Less than £5 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the yield from an increase of one pence in the standard rate of tax and in the employees' and
  44
  employers' national insurance contribution, respectively, in 1989–90; and if he will divide the tax figure to show the yield from earned and unearned incomes.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1122]: An increase of 1p in the basic rate of income tax is

  45
  estimated to yield about £1·5 billion in a full year at 1989–90 income levels; 90 per cent. of the yield is estimated to be from tax on earned income.

  An increase of 1percentage point in standard class 1 national insurance contribution rates is estimated to yield employee contributions of £2 billion and employer contributions of £2·25 billion in a full year at 1989–90 income levels.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing his estimate of the number of cases in which higher rate relief will be given on mortgage interest payments in the current financial year together with (a) the gross amount of interest qualifying for relief, (b) the amount of higher relief and (c) the number of recipients of working age and their distribution by personal tax category and by range of total income together with the average amount of relief given at the standard and higher rate of tax; and if he will add his forecast of the additional cost to the Revenue on the basis of this year's figures and rates of tax of mortgage relief as a result of the separate taxation of married couples;

  Beneficiaries1 of higher rate relief on mortgage interest by range of total income: 1989–90

  Range of total income (£)

  Number of tax units (thousand)

  Gross amount of interest quali-fying for relief (£ million)

  Cost of excess over basic rate relief (£ million)

  Average basic rate relief (£)

  Average excess over basic rate relief (£)

  Number of non-aged tax units (thousand)

  Singles

  20,001–25,000

  20

  75

  +

  870

  60

  20

  25,001–30,000

  65

  205

  20

  770

  300

  65

  30,001–40,000

  55

  185

  25

  830

  490

  55

  40,001–50,000

  20

  80

  10

  890

  530

  20

  Over 50,000

  20

  80

  10

  900

  540

  20

  Total

  180

  625

  65

  830

  380

  180

  One-earner couples

  20,001–25,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25,001–30,000

  80

  250

  15

  750

  200

  80

  30,001–40,000

  115

  360

  55

  770

  460

  115

  40,001–50,000

  55

  175

  25

  770

  460

  55

  Over 50,000

  75

  235

  35

  780

  470

  75

  Total

  325

  1,020

  130

  770

  400

  325

  Two-earner couples

  20,001–25,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25,001–30,000

  95

  255

  15

  680

  140

  90

  30,001–40,000

  310

  940

  110

  760

  350

  310

  40,001–50,000

  110

  305

  45

  710

  400

  105

  Over 50,000

  135

  430

  65

  810

  480

  130

  Total

  650

  1,930

  235

  750

  350

  635

  All

  20,001–25,000

  20

  75

  +

  870

  60

  20

  25,001–30,000

  240

  710

  50

  730

  200

  235

  30,001–40,000

  480

  1,485

  190

  770

  390

  480

  40,001–50,000

  185

  560

  80

  750

  430

  180

  Over 50,000

  230

  745

  110

  810

  480

  225

  Total

  1,155

  3,575

  430

  770

  370

  1,140

  + - less than £2·5 million

  1 includes about 250,000 tax units who are kept out of higher rate tax by this relief

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report tables showing by range of total income up to a lower limit of £100,000, for those above and those below pensionable age and distinguishing between single persons, one-earner and two-earner married couples, the estimated saving to the Exchequer of abolishing all allowances and reliefs
  46
  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing by range of income and tax status an estimate of the saving to the Exchequer in a full year from abolishing, respectively, the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions and higher rate relief on mortgage interest.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his replies, 28 July 1989 c. 1122–36]: Provisional estimates of excess over basic rate relief on mortgage interest in 1989–90, based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes, are given in the table. Estimates for independent taxation are not available.

  It is estimated that the full year yield, at 1989–90 levels, of the abolition of the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions would be £1·8 billion. Of the £1·8 billion, it is estimated that £0·3 billion would be from single persons, £0·8 billion from one-earner married couples and £0·7 billion from two-earner married couples. A more detailed breakdown of the yield is not available.

  Estimates are consistent with those made at the time of the Budget and they exclude any behavioural effects of the proposed changes.

  other than the basic single and married allowances; and if he will provide similar tables on the 1990 basis of separate taxation of husbands and wives.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1121]: The total direct revenue yield from abolishing all income tax allowances (other than the basic single and married allowances) and reliefs cannot be estimated reliably.
  47
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the earned and unearned income of the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers in the current financial year and of the amount they are expected to pay in national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1127]: I refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) of 3 July, Official Report, columns 33–36 for estimates of the earned and investment income of the top 1 per cent. of income tax payers. They are provisionally estimated to pay about £300 million in national insurance contributions in 1989–90.

  Number of tax units liable to tax and amount of earned income by range of total income, 1989–90

  Single persons

  Taxpayers aged under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Amount of earned income (£ million)

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Amount of earned income £ million)

  2,000

  140

  360

  —

  —

  3,000

  780

  2,550

  120

  410

  4,000

  740

  3,000

  220

  820

  5,000

  800

  4,030

  200

  860

  6,000

  900

  5,330

  170

  780

  7,000

  900

  6,250

  100

  530

  8,000

  800

  6,330

  90

  500

  9,000

  580

  5,150

  50

  270

  10,000

  1,090

  11,290

  90

  630

  12,000

  1,040

  13,200

  70

  590

  15,000

  690

  11,100

  70

  630

  20,000

  340

  7,470

  50

  500

  30,000

  90

  2,810

  20

  280

  50,000

  30

  1,810

  20

  430

  All ranges

  8,920

  80,680

  1,270

  7,230

  Number of tax units liable to tax and amount of earned income by range of total income, 1989–90

  Married couple without wife's earned income

  Taxpayers aged under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Amount of earned income (£ million)

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Amount of earned income £ million)

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  60

  280

  —

  —

  5,000

  150

  750

  40

  190

  6,000

  240

  1,430

  90

  480

  7,000

  230

  1,550

  120

  680

  8,000

  210

  1,560

  100

  650

  9,000

  270

  2,330

  80

  580

  10,000

  600

  6,070

  90

  710

  12,000

  870

  10,850

  90

  880

  15,000

  860

  13,520

  80

  960

  20,000

  560

  12,400

  50

  750

  30,000

  230

  8,040

  30

  650

  50,000

  100

  7,100

  20

  850

  All ranges

  4,380

  65,880

  790

  7,380

  Number of tax units liable to tax and amount of earned income by range of total income, 1989–90

  Married Couple without Wife's Earned Income

  Taxpayers aged under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Amount of earned income (£ million)

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Amount of earned income £ million)

  2,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,000

  1

  2

  —

  —

  5,000

  10

  30

  10

  50

  6,000

  20

  120

  20

  130

  7,000

  40

  270

  20

  120

  8,000

  90

  670

  30

  190

  9,000

  80

  720

  50

  390

  10,000

  290

  2,980

  90

  860

  48
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of tax units and amount of earned income in each tax band by range of total income and tax status for those (a) above and (b) below pensionable age.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1127]: Available estimates are given in the tables. They are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. Earned income includes any state or occupational pensions received.
  49

  Married Couple with Wife's Earned Income

  Taxpayers aged under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Amount of earned income (£ million)

  Number of units liable to pay tax ('000s)

  Amount of earned income (£ million)

  12,000

  730

  9,310

  90

  960

  15,000

  1,460

  23,910

  100

  1,380

  20,000

  1,690

  38,360

  130

  2,300

  30,000

  690

  23,820

  60

  1,390

  50,000

  180

  11,900

  20

  1,040

  All Ranges

  5,280

  112,090

  620

  8,810

  1 Less than 5,000.

  2 Less than £5 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of tax units in each tax band by range of total income and tax status for those below pensionable age, his estimate of the cost to the Revenue of the substitution of a single allowance of £3,000 and a married allowance of £6,000 for the present personal income tax allowances, the married women's earnings allowance and the wife's earnings election together with an increase in the rate of income tax from 25 per cent. to 35 per cent. on total incomes between £5,500 and £13,000 for single persons and £11,000 and £18,500 for married persons.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1127.]:Estimates of the direct change in income tax liability are given in the tables. They assume the following allowance and rate structure:

  (i) single person's allowance of £3,000;

  (ii) married man's allowance of £6,000;

  (iii) abolition of wife's earned income allowance and wife's earnings election;

  (iv) a basic rate tax of 25 per cent. on taxable income between

  £1 and £5,500 for single persons

  £1 and £11,000 for married couples

  (v) a higher rate tax of 35 per cent. on taxable income between

  £5,501 and £13,000 for single persons

  £11,001 and £18,500 for married couples

  (vi) a higher rate tax of 40 per cent. on taxable income above

  £13,000 for single persons

  £18,500 for married couples

  No allowance is made for possible behavioural effects or the consequential effects on capital gains tax. All estimates are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of tax units aged under 65, by range of total income, and cost/yield of changes to income tax allowances and higher rates of tax, 1989–90 Single Persons

  Total income (lower limit) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax in1989–90('000)

  Cost(—)/Yield( + ) of proposed regime(£ million)

  2,000

  140

  1

  3,000

  780

  -40

  4,000

  740

  -40

  5,000

  800

  -60

  6,000

  900

  -60

  7,000

  900

  -70

  8,000

  800

  -60

  9,000

  580

  -20

  10,000

  1,090

  80

  12,000

  1,040

  280

  15,000

  690

  360

  50

  Total income (lower limit)£ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax in 1989–90('000s)

  Cost (—) / Yield( + ) of proposed regime (£ million)

  20,000

  340

  420

  30,000

  90

  160

  50,000

  30

  50

  All ranges

  8,920

  1,000

  1 Cost of less than £5 million.

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Total income (lower limit)£ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax in 1989–90('000s)

  Cost (—) / Yield( + ) of proposed regime (£ million)

  2,000

  —

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  4,000

  60

  -10

  5,000

  150

  -40

  6,000

  240

  -80

  7,000

  230

  -80

  8,000

  210

  -70

  9,000

  270

  -100

  10,000

  600

  -240

  12,000

  870

  -350

  15,000

  860

  -330

  20,000

  560

  -20

  30,000

  230

  100

  50,000

  100

  40

  All ranges

  4,380

  -1,180

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Total income (lower limit)£ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax in 1989–90('000s)

  Cost (—) / Yield( + ) of proposed regime (£ million)

  2,000

  —

  —

  3,000

  —

  —

  4,000

  1

  2

  5,000

  10

  2

  6,000

  20

  3

  7.000

  40

  10

  8,000

  90

  10

  9,000

  80

  10

  10,000

  290

  30

  12,000

  730

  90

  15,000

  1,460

  300

  20,000

  1,690

  1,180

  30,000

  690

  1,150

  50,000

  180

  430

  All ranges

  5,280

  3,210

  1 Less than 5,000.

  2 Cost of less than £5 million.

  3 Yield of less than £5 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for (a) one-earner and (b)

  51
  two-earner married couples the number of tax units in each tax band by range of total income and tax status for those (i) above and (ii) below pensionable age and his estimate of the yield to the revenue in the current financial year from abolishing wife's earnings election and raising the higher rate of tax to 40 per cent. on incomes of married couples with total incomes between £18,500 and £27,000, 45 per cent. between £27,000 and £37,000, 50 per cent. between £37,000 and £50,000, 55 per cent. between £50,000 and £250,000 and 60 per cent. above £250,000;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for single persons the number of tax units in each tax band by the range of total income and tax status for those above and below pensionable age, his estimate of the

  Number of tax units, by range of total income, and yield from changes to higher rates of tax, 1989–90 Single persons

  Taxpayers aged under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit ) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax in1989–90 ('000s)

  Yield (£ million)

  Number of units liable to pay tax in 1989–90 ('000s)

  Yield (£ million)

  2,000

  7,770

  —

  1,110

  —

  15,000

  690

  40

  70

  20

  20,000

  340

  220

  50

  50

  30,000

  90

  170

  20

  50

  50,000

  30

  270

  20

  140

  All Ranges

  8,920

  700

  1,270

  260

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Taxpayers aged under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit ) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax in1989–90 ('000s

  Yield (£ million)

  Number of units liable to pay tax in 1989–90 ('000s)

  Yield (£ million)

  2,000

  2,630

  —

  610

  —

  15,000

  860

  —

  80

  —

  20,000

  560

  30

  50

  10

  30,000

  230

  120

  30

  20

  50,000

  100

  240

  20

  70

  All Ranges

  4,380

  390

  790

  100

  Married couples without wife's earned income

  Taxpayers aged under 65

  Taxpayers aged 65 and over

  Total income (lower limit ) £ per annum

  Number of units liable to pay tax in1989–90 ('000s)

  Yield (£ million)

  Number of units liable to pay tax in 1989–90 ('000s)

  Yield (£ million)

  2,000

  1,260

  —

  310

  —

  15,000

  1,460

  —

  100

  —

  20,000

  1,690

  40

  130

  10

  30,000

  690

  430

  60

  40

  50,000

  180

  700

  20

  100

  All Ranges

  5,280

  1,170

  620

  150

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of tax units in each tax band by range of total income and tax status for those (a) above and (b) below pensionable age and his estimate of the yield from making investment income chargeable to national insurance contributions on the same basis as earned income; and if he will include the number of tax units and total investment income in each case.
  52
  yield to the Revenue in the current financial year from an increase in higher rate tax for single persons to 40 per cent. on total incomes between £13,000 and £19,000, 45 per cent. between £19,000 and £26,000, 50 per cent. between £26,000 and £34,000, 55 per cent. between £34,000 and £125,000 and 60 per cent. above £125,000.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his replies, 28 July 1989, c. 1127–28]: Estimates of the direct increase in income tax liability are given in the tables. No allowance is made for possible behavioural effects or the consequential effects on capital gains tax. All estimates are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1127–28]: The hon. Member's question provides insufficient information on which to base an answer.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1979 the increase in mortgage funds for housing together with the increase in the value of the houses sold by reference to stamp duty or otherwise.
  53
  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1134]: Information on loans for house purchase is published in table 9·4 of "Financial Statistics". Information for earlier years appears on the Central Statistical Office databank which is available in the House of Commons Library. The table shows the year-on-year increase in the total value of residential property sold since 1979.

  Per cent.

  1980

  13

  1981

  15

  1982

  14

  1983

  23

  1984

  14

  1985

  11

  1986

  15

  1987

  26

  1988

  40

  Pensions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report (i) his estimate of the employers' notional contribution to notionally funded and unfunded schemes, (ii) figures for the Civil Service showing the percentage contribution made by the Government and their employees and (iii) his best estimate of the proportional split between sources of pension income in the cases quoted in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 22 of the Inland Revenue paper, using as a basis the information given in his answer of 11 November 1988, Official Report, column 235.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1136]: Available information is as follows:

  (i) Employers' notional contributions to notionally funded and unfunded pension schemes are published in table 4.10 of the 1989 edition of the "United Kingdom National Accounts".

  (ii) The Civil Service pension scheme is not funded. The costs of benefits are met as they arise from the civil superannuation vote. The Government Actuary's Department has costed employers' contributions at 17 per cent. of salaries. Employees pay contributions at 1½ per cent. of salary, mainly for widowers-widows benefits.

  (iii) Sources of income are published in the table referred to at (i). The full analysis requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  Schemes proposing a contribution holiday

  Schemes reporting in

  Employers' holiday

  Employees' holiday

  Number

  Amount (£m)

  Number

  Amount (£m)

  1987–88

  67

  56

  5

  2

  1988–89

  221

  332

  12

  19

  April-July 1989

  124

  350

  4

  1

  Note: The amounts shown represent the total surplus to be eliminated by contribution holidays for schemes which have reported in each period. Contribution holidays may be spread across several years. Schemes proposing a reduction in contributions rather than a contribution holiday are excluded.

EMPLOYMENT

  Civil Service (Relocation)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made in his Department's review, in line with Treasury guidelines, of

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide an up-to-date estimate of the yield of stamp duty on the sale of domestic premises in the current financial year and in 1988–89, with a breakdown by regions where possible.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 July 1989, c. 851]: The table gives the estimated yield from stamp duty on residential property in 1988–89, broken down by regions. Estimates for Scotland and Northern Ireland are very tentative since the information available does not distinguish receipts from conveyances of residential property in these regions.

  Region

  £ million

  North

  15

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  35

  East Midlands

  50

  East Anglia

  50

  South East

  375

  Greater London

  255

  South West

  130

  West Midlands

  55

  North West

  50

  Wales

  25

  Scotland

  40

  Northern Ireland

  1,080

  The forecast of stamp duty receipts in 1989–90, which was published in the 1989–90 "Financial Statement and Budget Report", included a forecast of £1,000 million for stamp duty on residential property. A regional breakdown of this figure is not available.

  Pension Fund Holidays
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report the value in 1988 and the current year to date of pension fund contribution holidays taken by employers and employees, respectively, together with his estimate of the amount of tax due thereon.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 July 1989, c. 853]: Information is not readily available in the form requested The table gives information on large self-administered pension funds reporting to the Inland Revenue on proposed action to remove surpluses following the legislation in the Finance Act 1986.

  the potential for the further relocation of Civil Service posts outside London and the south-east; and when he expects the review to be completed.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 7 June 1989 at column 57 to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler).

  YTS
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, how many YTS starts and how many leavers were recorded by each payment type, by male and female, and by one or two year training entitlement by standard training agency region, for Great Britain as a whole, and for each of the last three months.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As the information is contained in several tables I shall send the hon. Member the information requested and place a copy in the Library.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of unemployed and unemployment rate in the United Kingdom and the latest figure in other EEC countries on the basis used by the EEC Commission for comparative purposes; and what information he has for the United Kingdom and other EEC countries on the corresponding figures for June 1985, June 1979 and June 1973.

  Mr. Eggar
  The available information is given in the following table. International unemployment rates on a comparable basis are not available for June 1985, June 1979 and June 1973.

  United Kingdom July 1989 Male

  Age 50 to 54 years

  Age 55 to 59 years

  Age 60 years and over

  Duration

  Number of unemployed

  1per cent.

  Number of unemployed

  per cent.

  Number of unemployed

  per cent.

  Over 1 year

  65,996

  4·8

  94,006

  7·5

  7,365

  0·7

  Over 2 years

  52,188

  3·8

  76,711

  6·2

  3,760

  0·4

  Over 3 years

  40,756

  3·0

  61,868

  5·0

  2,922

  0·3

  Over 4 years

  32,206

  2·3

  47,989

  3·9

  2,288

  0·2

  Over 5 years

  25,631

  1·9

  37,681

  3·0

  1,805

  0·2

  TOTAL

  107,797

  7·8

  136,491

  11·0

  32,134

  3·2

  Female

  Age 50 to 54 years

  Age 55 to 59 years

  Duration

  Number of unemployed

  per cent.

  Number of unemployed

  per cent.

  Over 1 year

  22,710

  2·2

  30,954

  3·7

  Over 2 years

  16,501

  1·6

  24,196

  2·9

  Over 3 years

  12,641

  1·2

  19,580

  2·3

  Over 4 years

  9,345

  0·9

  15,337

  1·8

  Over 5 years

  6,602

  0·6

  11,562

  1·4

  TOTAL

  41,769

  4·1

  46,538

  5·5

  1 Unemployment as a percentage of the total work force in each age group.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will reply to Mr. Paul Handiside's letter of complaint about his experience on employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A reply was sent on 24 July 1989.56

  Unemployment rates for comparison between EEC member states (seasonally adjusted)

  May 1989 Per cent.

  April 1985 Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  6·8

  11·6

  Portugal

  5·5

  8·6

  Netherlands

  10·1

  10·5

  Luxembourg

  1·8

  3·1

  Italy

  10·7

  9·2

  Ireland

  17·0

  18·3

  France

  10·0

  10·3

  Spain

  17·6

  21·9

  Greece

  17·4

  7·8

  Germany

  5·9

  7·4

  Denmark

  7·1

  8·2

  Belgium

  9·9

  11·9

  1 April 1987

  Source: Statistical Office of the European Communities.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the number and percentage of (a) men and (b) women aged (i) 50 to 54 years, (ii) 55 to 59 years and (iii) 60 to 64 years for men only who are unemployed (1) in total, (2) over one year, (3) over two years, (4) over three years, (5) over four years, and (6) over five years for the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following information is available from the Library. The table shows for the United Kingdom the number of unemployed claimants for each age and duration category and these as a percentage of the total work force in each age group for July 1989, the latest available date.

  Inflation and Unemployment
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much(a) inflation and (b) unemployment have increased at the latest available date since 1979 in (i) each EEC country, (ii) the United States of America, (iii) Japan, (iv) Sweden, (v) the EEC as a whole and (vi) the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development as a whole.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures requested are shown in the table.
  57

  /

  Consumer prices

  Unemployment rate1

  Latest available date2

  Percentage change since1979

  Latest available date2

  Percentage change since 1979

  United Kingdom

  June

  169

  April

  43

  Belgium

  May

  79

  April

  30

  Denmark

  May

  176

  May

  18

  France

  May

  174

  April

  71

  Germany

  May

  28

  March

  67

  Greece

  May

  888

  April3

  289

  Ireland

  Q2

  283

  May

  139

  Italy

  May

  394

  May

  41

  Luxembourg

  May

  70

  ..

  ..

  Netherlands

  May

  47

  January

  74

  Portugal

  May

  1,258

  November

  -32

  Spain

  May

  277

  February

  108

  United States

  May

  61

  April

  -10

  Japan

  May

  28

  March

  10

  Sweden

  May

  113

  April

  -24

  EC

  May

  166

  March

  66

  OECD

  May

  79

  March

  15

  1 Standardised and seasonally adjusted.

  2 1989 unless otherwise stated.

  31988

  Sources:

  Prices: ED for United Kingdom: SOEC for Portugal and Luxembourg; OECD for others. Unemployment: SOEC for Ireland, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Luxembourg; OECD for others.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to the reply to the honourable Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)Official Report, 21 July, column 390, he will list that research work, known to his Department, which does not support the view that the removal of statutory minimum wage provisions can be expected to have beneficial effects on employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are two such studies:C. Craig, F. Wilkinson, G. Rubery and R. Tarling "Labour Market Structure, Industrial Organisation and Low Pay" Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge Research Paper No 54, 1982.
  D. Canning and R. Tarling, "A Report on the Department of Employment's Study, Wages Floors in the Clothing Industry 1950–1981, Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge, 1985.

  My Department does not necessarily agree that the evidence presented in these studies supports the conclusions drawn. In the latter case, a rebuttal of the authors' findings was published at the time.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ensure that all those employed on training schemes whether under youth training or employment training arrangements are fully covered by the health and safety regulations appropriate to the industry or business in which they are involved.

  Mr. Nicholls
  YTS and ET trainees are afforded the same protection as employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 by virtue of the Health and Safety (Training for Employment) Regulations 1988 (as amended).

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ensure that all those placed in employment training and YTS are fully inducted in safe working practices, that they are properly insured and provided with safety equipment, clothing and footwear appropriate to the activities in which they are engaged.
  58
  Mr. Nicholls
  Comprehensive statutory and contractual arrangements exist to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all ET and YTS trainees. These arrangements include provision for proper induction, insurance and appropriate protective equipment and clothing.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made any assessment of the effects on employment of the current level of interest rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government will continue to keep interest rates at whatever level is necessary to reduce inflation. This Department does not make forecasts of the future levels of employment or unemployment but if excessive wage increases are conceded jobs will be lost.

  Small Businesses (Loans)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to provide smaller business with lower-cost, fixed-term loans.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no plans to introduce a system which would provide subsidised loans for small businesses. This would distort competition and discriminate against businesses which have to obtain finance from normal commercial sources.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons in the west midlands region were disqualified from receiving unemployment. benefit during the period 1 January to 31 March 1989 because they were considered to have left their employment voluntarily without just cause and subsequently appealed against the disqualification.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 28 July 1989 at column 1050.
  59
  The number of persons who appeal against the decision to disqualify unemployment benefit because they were considered to have left their employment voluntarily without just cause are not separately identified from other claimants who appeal against the decision of an adjudication officer.

DEFENCE

  Kurt Waldheim
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the results of the review of the 1986 investigation into the fate of captive British service men and the possible involvement of the then Lieutenant Waldheim.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 16 February 1988 that a review would be undertaken of the results of the investigation carried out in 1986 by the Ministry of Defence into the fate of British servicemen and the possible involvement of the then Lieutenant Waldheim. This was in the light of both the report of the Commission set up by the Austrian Government, which had access to a wider range of sources than those available for the 1986 investigation, and of the continued questioning of Lieutenant Waldheim's role. Her Majesty's Government have now conducted most thorough inquiries into the allegations concerning his role in areas of specific British interest. The results of this review have been recorded in a report, which I have placed today in the Library of the House, and which is being published by HMSO.

  The review has been solely concerned with areas of British interest and has centred on the cases of British service men, mostly members of the special forces, captured between October 1943 and October 1944 in Greece and the Greek islands under the control of the German Army Group E, in whose headquarters Lieutenant Waldheim was then serving as a junior staff officer. These cases, covering over 80 British service men, include both those brought to the attention of the Ministry of Defence and others identified during the research for this review. The review has not looked at other allegations concerning Lieutenant Waldheim's involvement in areas not related to British interests.

  The review has involved long and painstaking research. The historical evidence and the documents gathered have been examined and analysed by the director of Army legal services who is well versed in the laws of war and who retains a residual responsibility for the prosecution of war crimes. His duty is to examine the evidence that has been put before him and advise whether, on that evidence, there is a case for a potential accused to answer. After very careful consideration his conclusion concerning the then Lieutenant Waldheim is that there is no evidence from which guilt of a war crime might be inferred.

  The report indicates that Lieutenant Waldheim knew of the capture of the British service men and the possible fate of "Commandos", but no evidence has come to light to indicate that as a junior staff officer he had the power either to order or to prevent that fate or indeed to affect the outcome in any way. Knowledge in such circumstances is not itself a crime. Her Majesty's Government have accepted the findings of the report.
  60
  The report also deals with British knowledge of Lieutenant Waldheim's wartime role and the post-war handling of relevant records. Allegations that records were altered, destroyed or withheld to protect President Waldheim are shown to be unfounded. He was not wanted by the United Kingdom either as a "top Nazi" or as a war criminal. In order to clarify these issues virtually all the most relevant papers have been included as annexes to the report. A very few documents have either not been published or not in full, on the ground of security or personal sensitivity. All these documents have been examined by Professor Sir Harry Hinsley, lately the Master of St. John's college, Cambridge, who agreed to scrutinise the results of the review in order to ensure its objectivity and thoroughness. I draw the House's attention to his statement in the report, in which he vouches for the validity of the conclusions drawn from these documents. On the question of President Waldheim's alleged post-war involvement with foreign intelligence services and his election to the United Nations, I do not intend to break the practice of successive Governments by commenting on such matters but I commend detailed consideration of the report.

  Research has concentrated on the main archives in this country, in Germany and America, but other archives were consulted, as well as individuals whose wartime service was of relevance or who had some other expertise to offer. Although it can never be said that any historic report is definitively the last word, I am satisfied that the investigation has produced, from the thousands of documents examined, what we believe to be the main relevant records. These have established a pattern showing the events, and the responsibilities of the German headquarters' officers involved in those events. We therefore feel justified in bringing this long exercise to a conclusion now, and publishing the results.

  A factor in this decision has been the need to consider the feelings of the relatives of the missing service men. very much regret that it has not been possible to resolve all the outstanding questions about what finally happened to the missing service men, although I should like to assure the House that any further information that may come to light will be passed on to the families.

  Cornfield Circles
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any official assistance has been given by service personnel to civilians investigating the origin of cornfield circles in Hampshire and Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any official assistance having been given by service personnel to civilians investigating the origin of crop circles.

  Defence Technology Enterprises Limited
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many licences have been arranged by Defence Technology Enterprises Ltd.; and how many recipients are companies registered in Scotland.

  Mr. Neubert
  Defence Technology Enterprises Ltd. has arranged 38 licences. Two are with companies registered in Scotland.

  Equipment Orders
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many major equipment orders are currently based on the fixed price system; and what assessment he has made of the effect of current rates of inflation on these contracts.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much of the research and development of the 1989–90 procurement programme will be spent in(a) Scotland (b) south-east England, respectively; and what is the proportion each represents of the total;

  (2) what is his estimate of expenditure in (a) Scotland and (b) south-east England in 1989–90 for research and development as set out in table 2.3 of Cm. 675–II.

  Mr. Neubert
  Estimates of regional expenditure on research and development are not available and could be produced only with disproportionate cost. Estimates of regional expenditure on equipment in the United Kingdom for 1985–86 and 1986–87 are however given in table 6.9 of "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989 —Volume 2".

  Pay Review Body (Representations)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what avenues are available to other ranks to provide the armed forces pay review body with their views on pay and allowances.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Members of the armed forces pay review body visit a number of service establishments in the United Kingdom and overseas each year as part of its annual review of service pay. During the course of these visits they meet service men and women of every rank, with the express aim of obtaining at first hand their views on pay and allowances.

  NATO Ministerial Meeting
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when is the next meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation planning group ministerial meeting.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The next meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's nuclear planning group will take place on 24–25 October 1989.

  "Way Ahead for NATO"
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the complete report on the "Way Ahead for NATO", referred to in paragraph 229, page 11 of Cm. 675-I, is expected to be published.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The NATO publication "A Comprehensive Concept of Arms Control and Disarmament" was issued with the NATO summit communique on 30 May 1989. A copy was placed in the Library of the House in June 1989.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the armed forces pay review body has been asked to take special account of the demographic trough and its potential effect on recuitment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has been informed of the implications of the demographic trough for the services, as well as of the wide range of measures being taken to help ensure that the services are adequately manned in the 1990s.

  Antarctic Hydrography
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programme of hydrography is currently being carried out in the Antarctic by HMS Endurance; what policy is being pursued in conjunction with the International Hydrographic Bureau to co-ordinate information from Admiralty charts with those produced by other countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Endurance undertakes annual hydrographic surveys of the western shores of the Antarctic peninsula. The Ministry of Defence supplies details of hydrographic work carried out by the United Kingdom to the International Hydrographic Bureau. The information is then re-published in the "International Hydrographic Bulletin", which is available to all hydrographic offices. Should any of the latter require further information, they may contact the hydrographer direct.

  Safety Critical Software
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he is making on North Atlantic Treaty Organisation harmonisation in relation to defence standards 00–55 and 00–56 covering safety critical software.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom has taken the lead in setting out the requirements for safety critical software to meet the needs of the late 1990s. The draft defence standards 00–55 and 00–56 have been given extensive distribution for comment within the United Kingdom and internationally. NATO is using 00–55 and 00–56 as source documents for its own guideline documents.

  It is important for international standards covering safety critical software to meet the requirements of both the civil and defence sectors, and to be accepted by the widest possible range of countries. The Ministry of Defence is therefore working closely with other Government Departments in seeking to harmonise the approaches of the United Kingdom defence and civil sectors. The United Kingdom position will, in due course, be presented to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), a body with a very wide membership, which has recently started to develop international standards for safety-related systems and the computers and software used in them. Other countries, including NATO members, will present their views to the IEC in a similar way.

  The Ministry of Defence is taking into account the work of the IEC as part of the process of consultation on

  63
  the draft defence standards 00–55 and 00–56 before they are issued as interim standards, and it will continue to aim for alignment with civil standards in any future revisions.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Neubert
  [pursuant to the reply, 24 July 1989, col. 554]: Due to an arithmetical error an incorrect figure was shown. The number of small firms receiving payment on direct contract has increased from some 4,000 in 1986–87 to over 5,500 in 1988–89 (not 7,000 as previously shown).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Playgrounds (Safety)
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to seek to improve safety standards of playing surfaces of children's playgrounds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The design and construction of playgrounds and play areas in schools must conform to standards recommended by the Department of Education. These standards have recently been revised and improvements introduced. The provision and maintenance, including safety standards, of public recreational facilities are the responsibility of district councils.

  GCSE Results
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the four weeks following the release of the GCSE results how many U grades were amended to higher grades; how many of these were allocated to each higher grade; and at which schools were the pupils who had changed results.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Available information relates to candidates with the Northern Ireland Schools Examinations Council only. Two hundred and twenty U grades were amended to higher grades as follows:

  Regrade

  A

  9

  B

  30

  C

  60

  D

  53

  E

  23

  F

  21

  G

  24

  The following schools and colleges of further education were attended by candidates with changed results:

  Bangor Grammar School

  Beechlawn Special School

  Belfast College of Technology

  Carrickfergus High School

  Coleraine College of Further Education

  Comber High School

  Corpus Christi College

  64

  Dominican College, Belfast

  Glengormley High School

  Gransha Boys' High School

  Grosvenor High School

  Hopefield High School

  Laurelhill High School

  Little Flower Secondary School

  Monkstown Community School

  Newry High School

  Newry Technical College

  Newtownabbey College of Further Education

  North Down College of Further Education

  North West College of Technology

  Portadown College of Further Education

  Rupert Stanley College of Further Education

  Saintfield High School

  St. Colman's High School, Strabane

  St. Columb's College, Londonderry

  St. Dominic's High School St. Patrick's Boys' Academy

  St. Patrick's High School, Banbridge

  Sullivan Upper School

  The Royal School, Armagh

  Urban Development Grants (Belfast)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for which areas of the city of Belfast applications for urban development grants are still approved.

  Mr. Needham
  Urban development grant applications may, in principle, still be accepted throughout the Belfast city council area. However, in February 1988, it was decided that, since demand exceeded resources, funds should be focused upon the areas of greatest need in the city.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for urban development grants for projects at Royal avenue, Belfast have been approved in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers

  1985

  1

  1986

  2

  1987

  5

  1988

  2

  1989*

  2

  * To date.

  Strangford Lough
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) representations in total and (b) objections he has received in connection with the proposal for a declaration of an area of special scientific interest at Strangford lough; and what proposals he has to rescind or modify this declaration of an area of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Scientific advisers have said the ASSI declaration is justified. We have consulted/discussed the proposed declaration over 580 times with affected local owners and local users, among others. Eighty individuals or groups have made representations or objections, or a mixture of the two, in writing. These responses will be carefully considered before a final decision is taken to confirm, with or without modification, or rescind the declaration.

  Pet Foods Plant, Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many objections he has received to the planning application for change of use from light engineering to pet foods processing for premises at 268 Balygowan road, Crossnacreevy, Castlereagh; what assessment has been made of potential smells from the proposed plant; what is the shortest distance from the proposed food plant to residential property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I have today written to the right hon. Gentleman giving the information requested.

  Planning Applications, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many objections were received in connection with planning application No. X/89/0611 for a proposed bungalow at 82/90 Ballybunden road, Killinchy, Newtownards; what was the closing date for receipt of objections; on what date he issued a planning decision; and on what date work commenced on site;

  (2) how many persons objected to planning application No. X/89/0175 for the conversion of a dwelling at 21 Ann street, Newtownards into two self-contained flats; what was the decision of Ards borough council in relation to this

  New Starts

  Planned New Starts

  Boroughs

  84–85

  85–86

  86–87

  87–88

  88–89

  89–90

  90–91

  91–94

  Ards

  64

  50

  63

  66

  104

  40

  173

  246

  Castlereagh

  93

  —

  16

  62

  35

  62

  8

  280

  Prison Population
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners there are of each denomination at each prison in Northern Ireland.

  Belfast

  Maze

  Maghaberry

  Magilligan

  YOC

  Roman Catholic

  256

  312

  111

  126

  75

  Church of Ireland

  112

  60

  71

  49

  38

  Presbyterian

  118

  50

  45

  52

  30

  Free Presbyterian

  17

  55

  32

  15

  ?

  Methodist

  21

  12

  8

  7

  2

  Others

  36

  23

  24

  14

  4

  Ballyoran Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the condition of the former Ballyoran primary school; when he received an application from Castlereagh borough council to take over this school; and when he proposes to make a decision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The premises of the former Ballyoran primary school, which are owned by the South-Eastern education and library board, are in a poor condition as a result of considerable vandalism.

  The Department of Education first received an inquiry from Castlereagh borough council regarding the possibil-ity of grant-aid towards the purchase of the former Ballyoran primary school on 22 September 1987.

  The Department has no objection to the acquisition by the council of these premises. However, the terms of the
  66
  application; what is his planning decision; and what complaints have been received in relation to these premises in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Needham
  I have today written to the right hon. Gentleman giving the information requested.

  Housing, Ards and Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are on the waiting list for homes in the boroughs of Ards and Castlereagh; how many homes were constructed by the Housing Executive in these two boroughs during each of the past five years; and how many new homes are planned by the Housing Executive in these two boroughs in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These are matters for the Housing Executive, but I am advised by the chairman that over 700 new homes are planned for Ards and Castlereagh in the next five years and that at 31 August 1989 the number of people on the waiting list in the boroughs of Ards and Castlereagh was 877 and 846 respectively.

  The number of new dwellings started by the Housing Executive in the two boroughs in each of the past five years and the number planned in each of the next five years is shown in the table. Figures for individual years in the period 1991–94 are not available.

  Mr. Cope
  The information that is readily available is set out in the table:

  disposal of the premises and the land are matters for consideration in the first instance by the South-Eastern education and library board.

  Traffic (Comber)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on traffic conditions in the centre of Comber; and what is the present programme for the construction of Comber by-pass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Traffic difficulties exist in Comber particularly at peak hours. Stage 2 of the Comber bypass is programmed to commence in April 1992.

  Electricity Charges
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates in 1988 and 1989 the fixed charges in the Northern Ireland Electricity accounts for both domestic and commercial consumers were increased; and what were the percentage increases in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  Northern Ireland Electricity's fixed (standing) charges increased on 1 April in each of these two years. The increases were 6·6 per cent. and 20·9 per cent. respectively for domestic and 7·6 per cent. and 36·1 per cent. for commercial consumers. After taking account of changes in unit charges, the average overall increases in NIE tariffs were 9 per cent. and 6·1 per cent. respectively in the two years.

  Cairnshill Filling Station, Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the restrictions for opening hours in the planning permission for Cairnshill filling station, 221 Smithfields road, Castlereagh, BT8, Co. Down.

  Mr. Needham
  I have today written to the right hon. Gentleman giving the information requested.

  Urban Development Grant
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy on accepting new applications for urban development grants for projects in the towns of Enniskillen, Omagh, Strabane, Armagh, Dungannon and Cookstown.

  Mr. Needham
  There are insufficient resources under the urban development grant scheme (which is funded by moneys voted by Parliament) to pay grants outside Belfast and Londonderry. The International Fund for Ireland has made grants available in district towns and other urban areas under the urban development programme. I have asked the chairman of the fund board to write to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Egg Production
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest figure for egg production in Northern Ireland; what it was 12 months prior to that date; and if he will make a statement on the future of egg production.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The high-quality egg industry in Northern Ireland makes, and will continue to make, a valuable contribution to the local economy. The estimated throughput of graded eggs at Northern Ireland's registered packing stations for the week ending 1 October 1989 was 37,000 cases (30 dozen eggs per case), compared with 43,000 cases in the corresponding week in 1988. The level of throughput is below that of the year before, but average price levels are substantially higher.

  Traffic, Shaw's Bridge
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the planned traffic density from the proposed new hotel on the site of the former playing fields of Stranmillis college at Shaw's bridge, Castlereagh;68
  whether he has approved this increase of traffic on to the main road at Shaw's bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I have today written to the right hon. Gentleman giving the information requested.

  Ballyvester Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present enrolment at Ballyvester primary school; what was the enrolment at this school during each of the past five years; how many new pupils were admitted to the school at the beginning of the new academic year; and how many applications for admission to Ballyvester primary school for the current academic year were refused.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Enrolment pupils

  January 1985

  54

  January 1986

  71

  January 1987

  77

  January 1988

  75

  January 1989

  77

  September 1989

  78

  In September 1989, 13 pupils were admitted; 16 were refused admission.

  Vehicle Testing Centre, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present waiting period to have vehicles tested at the Department of Environment vehicle testing centre in Newtownards; what change has taken place in the levels of employment at this centre during the past 12 months; what complaints he has received about delays at this centre; what proposals he has to privatise vehicle testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The waiting time is too long. The present appointment waiting time for vehicle tests at the Newtownards centre is five weeks for goods vehicles and five and a half weeks for private cars.

  There has been no change in the levels of employment at this centre during the past 12 months. One vacancy since August, due to promotion, will be filled this month. We are not aware of specific written complaints about delays at this centre.

  We have commissioned management consultants to review the present vehicle testing arrangements and to propose how the function might be carried out in future. The Department of Environment is currently considering the consultants' report and will consult the unions before deciding on proposals to achieve a better service for vehicle users.

  Wind Mill, Ballycopeland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what planning permission exists for the hill adjacent to the Wind Mill, Ballycopeland, Millisle; when this permission expires; and what current planning applications for this site are under consideration.

  Mr. Needham
  I have today written to the right hon. Gentleman giving the information requested.

  Drumadoon Drive, Ballybeen
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for improvements at Drumadoon drive, Ballybeen relating to road safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We will keep the incidence of injury accidents on the road under investigation. We will consider remedial action if this proves necessary.

  Grahamsbridge Road, Dundonald
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for improvements at Grahamsbridge road, Dundonald; when is it expected that work will commence on site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  An improvement scheme is planned at Grahamsbridge road, Dundonald. It will embrace the widening of the existing carriageway, provision of a footway and improvement of sightlines. Work on site should start in January 1990.

  Day-trippers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has made about the present restrictions imposed upon day-trippers visiting Northern Ireland by the Government of the Republic of Ireland; when he last discussed this subject at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Ministerial Council; when he last made representations to the Commission of the European Community about this subject; and when this matter will be heard by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

  Mr. Brooke
  We have made clear to the Irish Government through a number of channels, including the Intergovernmental Conference, our concern about their restrictions on travellers' allowances. When the restrictions were imposed in 1987, we brought them to the attention of the European Commission, who later the same year referred the case to the European Court of Justice. Written pleadings have been exchanged at the court, and the United Kingdom has submitted observations in support of the Commission. The court declared the written procedure closed in August, but has not yet fixed a date for oral hearing.

  Belfast Urban Area Plan
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to publish the report of the public inquiry into the Belfast urban area plan.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of Environment for Northern Ireland received the second and final part of the Planning Appeals Commission's report on 4 October. The Department is at present considering the report and will publish it along with its adoption statement on the Belfast urban area plan as soon as possible.

  Prison Chaplains
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which churches have appointed chaplains to each of the prisons in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  The Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church and the Methodist Church have each appointed chaplains to each of the prisons in Northern Ireland.

  Lagan College (Chaplains)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which religious denominations have appointed chaplains to the integrated school at Lagan college.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The appointment of chaplains to schools is a matter for school authorities.

  Education and Libraries Orders
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions in each of the past 10 years the Department of Education exercised its power of direction in the case of education and library boards for acting or proposing to act unreasonably in the discharge of their functions under the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Orders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Two such directions were issued to education and library boards in 1983.

SCOTLAND

  Wick and Dornoch Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list in the Official Report the number of community service orders and referrals which have been made by (a) the Wick sheriff court and (b) the Dornoch sheriff court in each year since the community service scheme commenced in Caithness and Sutherland in September 1985, giving the category of offence to which the orders related;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the number of fines imposed by (a) the Wick sheriff court and (b) the Dornoch sheriff court in 1986 and each subsequent year, giving the category of offence to which the fines related;

  (3)if he will list in the Official Report the number of those who have received custodial sentences of less than 12 months at (a) the Wick sheriff court and (b) the Dornoch sheriff court in 1986 and each subsequent year, giving the category of offence to which the sentences related.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available is set out in the table. Crimes have been grouped using the Scottish Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences. Information on community service referrals is not collected centrally.
  71

  Wrick Sheriff Court

  Dornoch Sheriff Court

  Person receiving fines

  Persons given custodial sentences of less than one year

  Persons receiving community service orders2

  Persons receiving fines

  Persons receiving custodial sentences of less than one year

  Persons receiving community service orders2

  Crime/Offence

  1986

  1987

  11988

  1986

  1987

  11988

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  1986

  1987

  11988

  1986

  1987

  11988

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  Total crimes and offences

  477

  414

  419

  22

  26

  25

  11

  19

  24

  21

  206

  179

  161

  8

  3

  2

  3

  8

  2

  8

  Total crimes

  90

  92

  66

  16

  19

  18

  9

  15

  11

  15

  35

  20

  18

  7

  3

  2

  3

  6

  2

  4

  Non-sexual crimes of violence

  6

  2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Homicide

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Serious assault etc.

  4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Handling offensive weapons

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robbery

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crimes of indecency

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sexual assault

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lewd and libidinous practices

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crimes of dishonesty

  59

  75

  40

  10

  15

  18

  7

  12

  8

  13

  21

  8

  12

  7

  3

  2

  2

  4

  2

  4

  Housebreaking

  7

  13

  2

  —

  8

  10

  3

  2

  4

  6

  1

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Theft by opening lockfast places

  7

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Theft of motor vehicle

  9

  7

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Theft by shoplifting

  4

  7

  2

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other theft

  19

  29

  17

  5

  3

  1

  1

  6

  3

  4

  14

  3

  4

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Fraud

  5

  4

  6

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  8

  13

  10

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Fire-raising, vandalism, etc.

  11

  7

  16

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  5

  5

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Fire-raising

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vandalism etc.

  11

  7

  16

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Other crimes

  13

  8

  7

  4

  4

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  8

  6

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Crimes against public justice

  8

  4

  6

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drugs offences

  5

  4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  5

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Offences

  387

  322

  353

  6

  7

  7

  2

  4

  13

  6

  171

  159

  143

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Miscellaneous offences

  118

  101

  105

  5

  6

  6

  2

  2

  12

  6

  29

  33

  32

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Simple assault

  32

  28

  25

  2

  4

  2

  1

  —

  5

  1

  4

  9

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Breach of the peace

  56

  44

  45

  3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  6

  5

  15

  4

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Drunkenness

  2

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  28

  29

  30

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  10

  20

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Motor vehicle offences

  269

  221

  248

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  142

  126

  111

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Reckless and careless driving

  56

  58

  96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  43

  32

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Drunk driving

  67

  46

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  52

  49

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Speeding

  60

  42

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unlawful use of vehicle

  61

  48

  45

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  38

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Vehicle defect offences

  14

  9

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  11

  18

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Provisional

  2 Including any orders made as a condition of probation.

  Fines
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the numbers, by sex, of those received into prison in default of fine payments in the most recent year for which figures are available, and for each of the five preceding years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  Number of males and females received into penal establishments in Scotland and default of fine payments

  Year

  Males

  Females

  1983

  8,772

  557

  1984

  8,431

  452

  1985

  10,829

  735

  72

  Year

  Males

  Females

  1986

  9,969

  657

  1987

  10,365

  618

  1988

  9,170

  544

  1Provisional.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the introduction of day or unit fines.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have given thorough consideration to the responses which we received earlier this year to our consultation document on fines and fine enforcement which discussed, among other aspects, the day or unit fine and we hope to be in a position to announce our proposals shortly.

  European City of Culture
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is allocating any additional funds to the city of Glasgow to use during its year as European city of culture.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are contributing £0.5 million directly to the European City of Culture 1990. In addition, Government-funded bodies are committing significant resources in support of particular events taking place in 1990.

  Charities
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish his conclusions on the responses to the consultative memorandum on the supervision of charities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Later this month copies will be made available in the Library in the normal manner.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (I) how many applications by Scottish Homes of persons approved by them have been served on public sector landlords with a view to acquiring housing;

  (2) how many groups to date have been approved by Scottish Homes as suitable landlords for the purchase of public sector houses under secure tenancies;

  (3) if it is the intention of Scottish Homes to set out a model lease to which persons seeking its approval as a landlord would be expected to adhere.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  To date no application has been served on any public sector landlord, in terms of section 58 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, either by Scottish Homes or by persons approved by them. As yet, no formal applications have been submitted to Scottish Homes by persons seeking to acquire approved landlord status under section 57 of that Act.

  In considering an applicant's suitability to be registered as an approved landlord, Scottish Homes does not intend to impose as a condition of approval that landlords implement a model lease. However, it will be a requirement of approval that a clear written tenancy agreement is made available to all tenants. Scottish Homes will provide advice to applicant landlords on a number of conditions which they would expect to be covered in the tenancy agreement. Approval of a landlord will be dependent on the landlord's agreement to meeting these conditions.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public relations officers are now employed by Greater Glasgow health board; and what was the comparable figure two years ago.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board employs three public relations officers; the board employed one two years ago.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the capital and revenue costs of providing nursery school places for all children in the three to five year age group.

  Mr. Lang
  On the assumption that the present proportion of part-time to full-time nursery places is maintained and on the basis of current unit costs, it is estimated that the total annual revenue cost of providing nursery education for all three and four-year-olds would be £113 million. It is not possible realistically to estimate what the associated capital cost might be.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to extend judicial review capacity to sheriff courts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate regards it as entirely appropriate that, as part of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, judicial review is carried out only by certain nominated judges of that court. He has no proposals to introduce legislation to provide for judicial review by sheriffs.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by health board the fees paid to consultants at the nearest available date for work undertaken in connection with competitive tendering.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Salmon
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from the advisory committee on salmon stocks about the genetic danger to wild salmon stocks that is likely to result from the release or escape of farmed salmon into the wild environment; and what was the first date of any such advice.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  Fisheries Ministers have not asked the Salmon Advisory Committee to provide advice or recommendations on the subject of possible genetic interaction between farmed salmon and wild salmon stocks. Informally the chairman of the Salmon Advisory Committee has drawn attention to the possible relevance of work of the Nature Conservancy Council in this field to codes of practice on restocking salmon rivers. This subject is not, however, one which we have specifically asked the Salmon Advisory Council to include in its already extensive programme of work.

  Aphids
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his review of his Department's research on aphids and aphid-borne diseases.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Our aim is to take decisions on the future of aphid trapping and monitoring
  75
  work in Scotland later this year after the Scottish aphid-borne virus working party has reported. I shall write to the hon. Member to inform him of these decisions in due course. Meanwhile the current level of aphid monitoring in Scotland will be maintained.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what date the Scottish electricity boards are required to submit their annual reports and accounts.

  Mr. Lang
  The report and accounts direction issued on 29 September 1989, copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House, requires the South of Scotland electricity board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board to submit their annual reports and accounts by 31 December.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made in respect of an invalid arrest warrant issued by the Hong Kong authorities on 30 November 1985, in relation to Lorrain Osman, currently held in the United Kingdom pending extradition proceedings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Since this matter is currently sub judice, it would not be appropriate for us to comment.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, under the joint agreement, the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China after 30 June 1997 will maintain reserve rights to amend the basic law of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong and to review the constitutionality of the local laws of the Special Administrative Region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Article 158 of the current draft of the Basic Law vests the power of amendment of the Basic Law in the National People's Congress. It states that no amendment to the Basic Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the PRC regarding Hong Kong. These are set out in paragraph 3 and elaborated in annex 1 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now estimates that close co-operation can be restored between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China authorities; to what extent such restored co-operation could lead to a full implementation of the Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The thirteenth meeting of the Sino-British joint liaison group, which took place from 27 to 29 September, marked the restoration of formal consultation with the People's Republic of China over Hong Kong. The communiqué which issued from that meeting stated that both sides had reaffirmed their continued determination to abide by the Joint Declaration and to fulfil the various responsibilities it lays down.
  76
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom Government's right to pursue diplomatic claims on behalf of Hong Kong citizens of BNO status is covered by the agreement with the Government of China.

  Mr. Maude
  The British memorandum associated with the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the question of Hong Kong makes clear that from 1 July 1997 those British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTCs) from Hong Kong, who have by then elected to become BN(O)s and to travel on BN(O) passports, will be entitled to consular services and protection in third countries. The Chinese memorandum indicates that such passports may continue to be used from 1 July 1997, although, in accordance with normal practice in cases of dual nationality, BN(O)s will not be entitled to consular protection by the United Kingdom Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, or in other parts of China.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal opinions his Department has obtained on the nationality status of persons born in Hong Kong when sovereignty passes to China in 1997.

  Mr. Maude
  The Chinese memorandum to the Sino-British Joint Declaration states that under Chinese nationality law, all Hong Kong Chinese are Chinese nationals. The British memorandum makes clear that all Hong Kong British Dependent Territories citizens will, from 1 July 1997, be eligible to retain an appropriate status which will entitle them to continue to use passports issued by the Government of the United Kingdom. It also provides that that status will be acquired by BDTCs only if they hold, or are included in, a BN(O) passport issued before 1 July 1997, except that eligible persons born on or after 1 January 1997, but before 1 July 1997, may obtain or be included in such a passport up to 31 December 1997.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has taken legal opinion on whether under international law the citizens of Hong Kong will upon transfer of sovereignty to China become de jure Chinese nationals.

  Mr. Maude
  In accordance with the exchange of memoranda associated with the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong, all persons who on 30 June 1997 are, by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong, British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTCs) under the law in the United Kingdom, will cease to be BDTCs with effect from 1 July 1997, but will be eligible to retain the status of British Nationals (Overseas). At the same time, under the nationality law of the People's Republic of China, all Hong Kong Chinese compatriots, whether they are BDTCs or not, are Chinese nationals.

  Soviet Submarines
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representa-tions he has made to the Soviet Government regarding the threat to the environment from nuclear-powered Soviet submarines.

  Mr. Waldgegrave
  None.

  European Community
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement setting out the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the future development of the EEC.

  Mr. Maude
  Britain will remain a full and active participant in the development of the European Community. Our top priority is the completion of the single market on time, bringing down the barriers inside Europe and staying open to the world outside. We are contributing fully to discussions in all areas of Community activity.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take in cases where the Commission of the EEC presents directives which appear to exceed the powers conferred under the Treaty of Rome and the Single Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave him on 19 May. We shall decide our response as and when such cases arise.

  Antarctic
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Paris meeting on the Antarctic.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The fifteenth Antarctic treaty consultative meeting is still in progress. Its final report will be adopted on 20 October.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to promote the establishment of an Antarctic treaty secretariat.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At the fifteenth Antarctic treaty consultative meeting currently being held in Paris, our delegation will be pressing for a decision in principle that an Antarctic treaty secretariat should be established.

  Federal Republic of Germany
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he is next meeting his West German counterpart; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Herr Genscher on 20 September when they discussed a broad range of issues. They are likely to meet again soon, although no specific date has been arranged.

  Namibia and Angola
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of United Nations security resolution 435 in Namibia and Angola.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Elections to a constituent assembly in Namibia will take place from 7 to 11 November. We will continue to give full support to the United Nations' efforts to ensure that the elections are free and fair, and to assist in a peaceful transition to independence.

  Chile
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further meetings Her Majesty's Ambassador to Chile has had with opposition parties and human rights groups; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Chile and his staff have had, and continue to have, frequent meetings and wide-ranging discussions with human rights groups and opposition parties. A full list is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Turkey (Kurdish people)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Government of Turkey concerning abuses of human rights and the treatment of Kurdish people.

  Mr. Maude
  I shall be meeting the Under-Secretary of the Turkish Foreign Ministry later today. I shall make it clear that, while we welcome the improvement in Turkey's human rights record described by Mr. Ozal in his address to the Council of Europe on 27 September, it remains important that the Turkish Government should respect and abide by the terms of the international conventions to which they are a party.

  Policy Implementation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out his Department's(a) successes and (b) failures of policy implementation since May 1979.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28 April and by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 2 May, to the questions from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department met with President Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates during his recent visit to London, to discuss(a) nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East Gulf Region and (b) initiatives that may be taken at the fourth review conference of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. But we have made it clear on many occasions that we would welcome the adherence of the United Arab Emirates to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what correspondence his Department has received in the last six months on the issue of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office regularly receives correspondence touching on nuclear-related issues, including non-proliferation, from organisations and members of the public.
  79
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place since July with other governments on progress on preparations for the fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Further discussions took place at the second preparatory committee for the fourth review conference, which was held in Geneva from 11 to 15 September.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to raise the issue of non-proliferation treaty membership with each of the governments of the non-proliferation treaty states; and what initiatives he plans to increase the total membership of the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We regularly raise the question of accession to the treaty with non-parties at various levels. As a depositary power, the United Kingdom attaches importance to the widest possible adherence to the treaty.

  South Africa (Sanctions)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ministerial representation there was at the Commonwealth meeting of Foreign Ministers, held in Canberra in early August, to discuss sanctions on South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  The hon. Member is presumably referring to the meeting of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on South Africa. Britain is not a member of the Committee.

  Libya (Exports)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions there are on United Kingdom exports of civil nuclear technology and nuclear materials to Libya.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  All United Kingdom exports of nuclear technology and materials continue to be governed by the policy set out by the then Foreign Secretary on 31 March 1976.

  Compensation Orders (China)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many offers of settlement have been made under the Foreign Compensation (People's Republic of China) Order 1987; under what categories they have been; and how many of these offers have so far been accepted.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A final offer cannot be made until the Foreign Compensation Commission has completed determination of all claims, including property claims, against the China Fund. This is not expected until autumn 1990. However, in January an interim payment of 5 per cent. of the value assigned by the commission to a bond was announced to bond claimants. Out of 1,717 bond claimants to whom offer of interim payment has been made, 1,592 had accepted the offer as of 29 September 1989.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings in the past 12 months have been held at(a) ministerial level and (b) senior Civil Service levels with Gibraltarian authorities about matters concerned with the European Community.

  Mr. Maude
  European Community matters affecting Gibraltar have been discussed at ministerial level with the Gibraltar Government four times in the last 12 months. There have been frequent contacts at official level.

  Statelessness
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will cite the occasions where the United Kingdom has engaged in treaty making or other international agreement which complies with article 10 of the United Nations convention on reduction of statelessness.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  When the United Kingdom has transferred territory by treaty in the circumstances envisaged in the United Nations convention since 1966, the date when the convention became binding on the United Kingdom, appropriate arrangements for national-ity have been made in compliance with that article.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom and United Kingdom dependencies flag vessels seized by the United States under the 13 November 1981 exchanges of notes concerning co-operation in the suppression of the unlawful importation of narcotic drugs into the United States, showing the date seized, the drugs found, the number of persons arrested and indicate any judicial penalties imposed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am arranging for copies of a list showing the British vessels seized under the 1981 Exchange of Notes, the date seized, the drugs found and the number of persons arrested to be deposited in the Library of the House.

  We are seeking information on the penalties imposed in each case. I shall write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States authorities to clarify the geographic scope of the 13 November 1981 exchange of notes concerning co-operation in the suppression of the unlawful importation of narcotic drugs into the United States and to strengthen both reporting requirements and dispute resolution procedures; and if he will make a statement on the efficacy of the agreement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since the Exchange of Notes was concluded in 1981 we have been in contact with the Americans about various aspects of the agreement. In our view, the agreement works satisfactorily; it is helping the fight against the clandestine import of drugs in the area to which the agreement relates. It is not our practice to disclose details relating to the operation of such agreements.

  United Kingdom High Commission, Nicosia
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff there are in the United Kingdom High Commission in Nicosia, Cyprus; how many of the staff are(a) Greek Cypriots and (b) Turkish Cypriots; and what steps are taken to monitor these proportions relative to the size of each of the communities on the island.

  Mr. Maude
  There are 76 staff altogether in the High Commission. Of these, 40 are locally engaged, including six Greek Cypriots and four Turkish Cypriots.

  Recruitment of locally engaged staff takes place on the basis of ability, not ethnic origin. There are, however, practical difficulties in recruiting members of one community to work in territory controlled by the other.

  Ethiopian Jews
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations about the treatment of Ethiopian Jews in United Nations camps in the Sudan.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have been in touch with UNHCR. In their view there has been no discrimination in the treatment of Ethiopian refugees.

  Falashas (Ethiopia)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Ethiopian Government about allowing Falashas to join their relatives in Israel.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have raised this matter with the Ethiopian authorities. Their response was that the Falasha are treated in the same way as other Ethiopians wishing to emigrate.

  Geneva Convention
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give the reasons why the United Kingdom has not yet ratified the protocols of the Geneva convention signed on 8 June 1977.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My hon. Friend is probably referring to the issue of ratification of the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva conventions. We have been considering carefully the legal, political and military implications of ratification. This has involved a detailed and continuing process of consultations with our allies in NATO. Progress has been made. Final decisions on ratification will be made when that process of consultation is complete.

  Drug Traffickers, Colombia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his response to the representations from the Foreign Minister of Colombia regarding British participation in the training of mercenary personnel for employment by drug barons.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made 82
  clear when he met Sr Londoño in New York on 26 September, we condemn unequivocally and unreservedly the activities of those who work for drugs traffickers in Colombia. It is primarily for the Colombian authorities to take action in respect of offences committed in Colombia. We remain in close touch with the Colombian authorities on this issue.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many sessions of the Geneva conference on disarmament for a global chemical weapons convention have been held to date; and if he will list the participating states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Conference on Disarmament, originally called the Committee on Disarmament, was established by the first United Nations special session on disarmament in 1978. It first met in 1979 and since then there have been two three-month sessions per year, thus totalling 22 sessions to date. The subject of chemical weapons has been on the conference's agenda from the outset. In 1983 additional shorter "inter-sessional" consultations specifically on chemical weapons were also established. There have been 11 such "inter-sessional" meetings to date.

  The 40 members states of the Conference on Disarmament are Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Canada, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, France, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Italy, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Soviet Union, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Yugoslavia and Zaire. In addition, there are about 25 states holding observer status at the conference.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest Soviet responses to NATO requests for details and timescales of Soviet undertakings to destroy chemical warfare stocks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. Shevardnadze announced in January that the Soviet Union would begin the destruction of its chemical weapons, CW, stockpiles in 1989 at a new facility in Chapayevsk which was being constructed for this purpose. No further information was given on the details and timescale of the destruction programme, but on 6 September it was announced that the Chapayevsk facility would not now be completed. Due to local environmentalist pressure it is to be converted to a "training centre for devising industrial methods for destroying toxic substances". No revised destruction programme has been announced but it appears unlikely that the Soviet Union will begin destruction this year. In contrast, the United States commenced its CW destruction programme in 1970 and has to date destroyed 15 million pounds of chemical weapon agent.

  Strategic Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how often the United Kingdom Government have participated directly in negotiations with the Soviet Union with the objective of securing a treaty for the reduction or elimination of strategic nuclear weapons.
  83
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have not participated in such negotiations. We have, however, made it clear that if United States and Soviet strategic arsenals were to be very substantially reduced, and if no significant change had occurred in Soviet defensive capabilities, Britain would want to review her position and to consider how best she could contribute to arms control in the light of the reduced threat.

  Archbishop of Canterbury (Vatican Visit)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities were extended by the British Mission to the Vatican to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the course of his recent visit to Rome: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  This was an official ecclesiastical visit. The arrangements were made by the Vatican in conjunction with Lambeth palace. Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Holy See, as a courtesy, offered a dinner for the Archbishop.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Management Schemes
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of local management schemes for schools.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am pleased to be able to announce that all local education authorities have submitted their LMS schemes. This is an impressive achievement. About 10 schemes were submitted at least a month early and we have already begun announcing our approval for the first of these to come into force next April.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to make additional resources available to local education authori-ties to increase the provision of nursery school education.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on nursery school provision.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Our plans for 1989–90 allow the steady expansion of the last decade to continue. Our plans for 1990–91 will be announced in the autumn statement.

  Teachers (Resignations)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the number of resignations from teachers which were submitted by 31 May.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Teachers submit their resignations to local education authorities and comprehensive information about the number of resignations in May 1989 is not yet available to the Department.

  Primary School Teachers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on primary school teacher shortages.
  84
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In general, across the country as a whole, there are sufficient primary school teachers and few problems of shortages. However, there are problems in some areas, particularly in inner London. Recruitment to primary initial teacher training continues to be buoyant, and there should be sufficient teachers overall to meet demand in the future.

  Teacher Shortages
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with present and future local education authorities in London about teacher shortages.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor met the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), together with representatives of the Inner London education authority, on 13 June. I met the leaders of the inner London councils on 19 June, and again on 12 September, and on both occasions discussed teacher shortages. We agreed that there should be further discussions at official level.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools do not have a full complement of teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not available centrally. The employment and deployment of teachers are matters for local education authorities and schools.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy towards teachers' pay and conditions.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government's policy is that teachers' pay should reflect the need to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers of the right quality within what can be afforded.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning teachers' pay; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations concerning teachers' pay. He announced the remit for the interim advisory committee's consideration of the 1990–91 pay settlement on 26 September.

  Education Act 1981
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made in preparing the revised circular of guidance regarding the implementation of the Education Act 1981.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Circular No. 22/89 was issued on Friday 29 September 1989. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to encourage those currently in other professions to train as teachers.
  85
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The principal elements in our programme directed towards mature entrants are the new licensed teacher arrangements, the funding of special courses for graduates making a career change, the provision of "taster" courses, and the preparation of publicity material specifically directed at mature entrants.

  Higher Education (Access)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Royal Society of Arts in support of improved access to higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has been kept informed of the Royal Society of Arts' initiative in establishing a project under the banner of the Industry Matters Education/Industry Forum, directed by Sir Christopher Ball, to consider the widening of access to higher education. I understand that an interim report is shortly to be published as a basis for further comment and consultation, and that the final report will follow thereafter.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much public money has been allocated to city technology colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of £28·5 million has been spent on the city technology college programme between the inception of the programme and the end of September 1989. Further planned public expenditure to the end of the financial year 1991–92 is £93·8 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 with which sponsors' plans are implemented.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many city technology colleges have now been announced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The city technology college programme is making excellent progress. Kingshurst opened last year, Nottingham and Teesside opened last month, and a further eight projects have been announced with firm opening dates in 1990 and 1991. In addition, five companies or individuals have announced their willingness to be major participants in the CTC programme.

  War Studies
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has concerning GCSE and advanced level courses concerning the study of war and conflict subjects.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council is responsible for the approval of GCSE and advanced level examination syllabuses. I am not aware of any such syllabuses concerned exclusively with the study of war and conflict subjects. The study of war and conflict is of course sometimes included as part of an examination syllabus, in subjects such as history or a humanities subject.

  Educational Attainment
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to improve educational attainment of the lowest 40 per cent. of schoolchildren.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum will raise standards of achievement for pupils of all ages and abilities.

  School Activities (Charging)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any proposals to amend the law relating to charging for school activities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The new law has been in place for only one full term. It is far too soon to make firm judgments about its effects.

  Nursery Teachers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to provide himself with an accurate picture of teacher supply in nursery education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department collects data on vacant nursery posts. In January 1989 there were 194 vacancies. The latest primary school staffing survey shows that almost all nursery teachers had received nursery or infant specific training.

  Humberside College of Higher Education
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in connection with Humberside college of higher education's proposal that it be afforded polytechnic designation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The principal of Humberside college of higher education wrote to me in 1987 asking that the college be considered for designation as a polytechnic. In our initial letter of guidance to the PCFC we invited the council to offer advice on the question of further polytechnic designations. Following its last meeting the council wrote to my right hon. Friend recommending the criteria it considered a college should satisfy to merit designation as a polytechnic. My right hon. Friend has indicated that he is inclined to agree with the PCFC's advice, but that he would welcome views from those who have an interest in the issue.

  London Education Authorities
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from London local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend continues to receive representations on a range of matters.

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on secondary school teacher shortages.
  87
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In January 1989 vacancies amounted to about 1·3 per cent. of the secondary teaching force—a proportion that has remained broadly similar over many years. However, there are difficulties in filling vacancies in some areas and in some subjects. Over £50 million has been spent so far on the Department's action programme, launched in 1986 to combat these difficulties. We will continue and reinforce this programme.

  Open University
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received during the present year regarding funding for the Open university.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend received in January and February over 100 representations from Open university students. The Open university visiting commit-tee, which advises him on the university's plans and their financial implications has discussed with the university its funding requirements for 1990 and subsequent years. My right hon. Friend will announce the university's grant for 1990, and the indicated grants for 1991 and 1992 later this year.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the cost of each student at(a) universities and (b) polytechnics for 1979 and at the latest date for which such information is available.

  Mr. Jackson
  The data requested are as follows. The figures show the net institutional expenditure per student at universities (Great Britain) and polytechnics (England) in cash terms.

  Net institutional expenditure1 per student

  Financial year (£)

  1979–80

  1987–88

  Universities1

  3,074

  5,719

  Polytechnics2

  2,515

  3,356

  1 The figures for universities are based on recurrent expenditure financed by UGC grants and tuition fee income for home and overseas students. The figures for polytechnics are net recurrent institutional expenditure per full-time student. Institutional expen-diture includes direct and indirect costs of providing tuition but excludes financing cost of capital expenditure.

  2 Standard weightings have been used to calculate numbers of full-time equivalent students.

  Schools (Data Use)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to issue advice as to whether schools are independent data users under the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has recently advised the Data Protection Registrar that in matters of school administration, with the exception of school registers, the governors of LEA-maintained schools hold electronic data as agents of the local education authority and are thus covered by the authority's data users licence. Governors keeping their registers on computer must however be licensed separately. The Department will issue guidance on this subject to authorities and schools in the near future.

  Autistic Children
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines he provides for the diagnosis and statementing of autistic children for(a) pre-nursery and (b) pre-school.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Secretary of State does not provide such guidelines; this is a matter for local education authorities. General advice to LEAs on their duties under the Education Act 1981 in relation to the making of assessments and statements of special educational need is contained in circular No. 22/89 which was issued on 29 September. I have made arrangements for the hon. Member to receive a copy of this circular, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if there was any ministerial or departmental representation at the fifth assembly of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics held at Reading university in July and August.

  Mr. Jackson
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave the opening address at this scientific conference, which was attended by numerous scientists from the science research councils active in the fields involved.

  Institute of Meat Research
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what approaches have been made by any governments to Her Majesty's Government concerning the Institute of Meat Research in Bristol; if he will publish details; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  No such approaches have been received.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on plans to reform student unions.

  Mr. Jackson
  We published our survey of student unions on 27 September. My right hon. Friend will come forward with proposals for changes in due course.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement about his student loan proposals.

  Mr. Jackson
  The work described in my right hon. Friend's statement on 19 June—Official Report columns 21–22—is proceeding. We shall announce further details in due course.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how he intends to reimburse banks for the branch cost of administering student loan repayments, deferrals and defaults; and if he will now estimate branch costs;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, East of 24 July, Official Report, column 442, if he will publish the detailed analysis and cost-time estimates on the administration of the student loans scheme;
  89
  (3) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, East of 24 July, Official Report column 441, if he will now publish his assessment of the recurring costs of student loans administration in each year beyond 1995 (a) in total and (b) per account.

  Mr. Jackson
  I cannot comment at this stage on matters which are subject to contractual negotiations. As we have made clear, the House will be informed of the major steps in the preparations for administration of the loans.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has held, or plans to hold, with building societies concerning his proposed top-up loans for students scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  The discussions with the financial institutions described in my right hon. Friend's statement on 19 June include representation of the building societies.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if student loan debt collection agencies will have access to(a) the poll tax register, (b) the electoral register and (c) national insurance records;

  (2) what records student loan debt collection agencies will have access to.

  Mr. Jackson
  The loans administration company will have access to the normal range of public documents in addition to the information provided by students in making their applications.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)Official Report, 24 July, column 442, concerning the next stage of the detailed analysis of the top-up loans scheme, whether this has now been completed; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. MacGregor
  When Price Waterhouse's stage 2 report is completed, I shall place in the Library of the House copies of the report other than those parts which are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has managed any evaluation of the employment career development loan scheme piloted by the Department of Employment, in the context of his student proposals.

  Table A

  Cereals-Target threshold and intervention prices

  Target

  Threshold

  Intervention

  Year

  tonne

  Common Wheat

  Barley

  Common Wheat

  Barley

  Common Wheat

  Barley

  1973–74

  UA

  114·94

  105·29

  112·80

  103·10

  105·80

  96·66

  1974–751

  UA

  12·184

  110·55

  119·00

  107·70

  110·03

  96·60

  1974–75

  UA

  127·93

  116·08

  125·10

  113·25

  115·53

  101·43

  1975–76

  UA

  139·44

  126·99

  136·45

  124·00

  125·93

  110·96

  1976–77

  UA

  152·00

  137·80

  149·30

  135·10

  131·00

  116·00

  1977–78

  UA

  158·08

  144·97

  155·15

  142·00

  120·06

  120·06

  1978–79

  UA

  162–39

  147·23

  159·40

  144·25

  121·57

  121·57

  1979–80

  ECU

  201·42

  182·89

  197·45

  178·90

  149·17

  149·17

  1980–81

  ECU

  214·01

  194·32

  209·20

  189·50

  155·88

  155·88

  1981–82

  ECU

  230·55

  210·00

  225·55

  205·00

  165·23

  165·23

  1982–83

  ECU

  250·61

  228·27

  245·61

  223·27

  179·27

  179·27

  1983–84

  ECU

  261·41

  238·17

  256·43

  233·17

  184·58

  184·58

  1984–85

  ECU

  259·08

  236·30

  254·05

  231·27

  182·73

  182·73

  1985–86

  ECU

  254·98

  232·61

  249·95

  227·58

  179·44

  179·44

  1986–87

  ECU

  256·16

  233·86

  250·81

  228·51

  179·44

  170·47

  1987–88

  ECU

  256·10

  233·80

  251·39

  229·09

  179·44

  170·47

  1988–89

  ECU

  250·30

  228·00

  245·68

  223·38

  179·44

  170·47

  1989–90

  ECU

  241·08

  219·46

  236·74

  215·12

  174·06

  165·36

  90
  Mr. MacGregor
  No. The national scheme of career development loans was introduced in July 1988. The clientele for which it is intended is quite different from that for top-up loans.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereals
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1973 (a) the (i) guide, (ii) intervention, (iii) threshold and (iv) other prices for cereals and (b) the co-responsibility levies together with (1) the amount produced, (2) the surplus production, (3) the amount taken into intervention, (4) the corresponding world price and (5) the cost to the EEC of (x) intervention, (y) storage and (z) export refunds.

  Mr. Curry
  Details of the target, threshold and intervention prices for common wheat and barley since 1973 are given in table A. In addition, a separate buying-in price has operated since 1987–88 at 94 per cent. of the intervention price.

  The cereals co-responsibility levy was introduced from the start of the 1986–87 marketing year. In its first two years of operation, the rate was set at 5·38 ecu-tonne. In 1988–89 the basic levy remained at 5·38 ecu-tonne, but there was also an additional levy of 2·87 ecu-tonne. in 1989–90 the basic levy is 5·22 ecu-tonne and the provisional rate of the additional levy is also 5·22 ecu-tonne. The latter will be reduced if the 1989 Community harvest does not exceed the maximum guaranteed quantity of 160 million tonnes by 3 per cent. or more.

  Details of European Community cereals production, the difference between production and consumption, and the amount taken into intervention are given in table B. There is no single representative measure of world price for cereals.

  Details of EC expenditure on cereals intervention storage and export refunds are given in table C.
  91
  1 Revised 1974–75 prices effective from 7 October 1984.

  Table B

  Cereals

  Production: Production less consumption; Intervention purchases

  Million tones

  Year

  Usable cereals production

  Production less consumption

  Intervention purchases

  1973–74

  104·6

  -10·8

  1·8

  1974–75

  107·2

  -6·0

  2·3

  1975–76

  96·4

  -13·8

  1·4

  1976–77

  90·0

  -19·7

  0·4

  1977–78

  102·5

  -8·9

  1·1

  1978–79

  115·4

  -0·5

  1·2

  1979–80

  113·7

  -1·9

  2·2

  1980–81

  124·8

  +7·8

  4·7

  1981–82

  122·3

  +6·9

  2·4

  1982–83

  131·4

  +17·3

  8·5

  1983–84

  123·3

  +6·3

  4·0

  1984–85

  151·4

  +32·5

  13·2

  1985–86

  160·4

  +17·2

  11·9

  1986–87

  154·4

  +14·8

  5·5

  1987–88

  153·4

  +20·0

  4·8

  11988–89

  163·2

  +26·2

  3·7

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 1973–74 to 1979–80—Figures are for EC 9.

  1980–81 to 1984–85—Figures are for EC 10.

  1985–86 to 1988–89—Figures are for EC 12.

  92

  Table C: EC Budget Expenditure—Cereals 1973–1989

  Export refunds (including food aid) (£ million)

  Public intervention storage (£million)

  1973

  195·4

  29·9

  1974

  31·7

  11·8

  1975

  143·2

  23·4

  1976

  158·7

  28·1

  1977

  135·7

  9·4

  1978

  494·3

  39·2

  1979

  769·1

  76·9

  1980

  711·3

  128·9

  1981

  671·8

  227·2

  1982

  594·0

  252·9

  1983

  894·5

  331·8

  1984

  536·3

  207·8

  1985

  633·2

  476·4

  1986

  1,108·9

  869·6

  1987

  2,270·7

  672·1

  1988

  2,042·5

  844·6

  1989

  3,834·1

  1,316·8

  Note.—The figures for 1973–77 have been converted for units of accounts. It is not possible to convert mua to mecu accurately. Therefore these figures do not strictly compare with figures for later years.

  Source:

  1973–87 FEOGA Financial Reports

  1988 Provisional Outturn

  1989 Budget Conjunctive Document

  EC Support
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for 1988 and 1987 the amount each European Economic Community state received from the European Economic Community by way of support for agriculture, the percentage share of the total, and the amount paid into the European Economic Community as a percentage of own resources payments.

  EC expenditure—EAGGF and own resources

  £ million

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  Total EAGGF

  Percentage of EC total

  Total EAGGF

  Percentage of EC total

  Own resources

  Percentage of total

  Own resources

  Belgium

  606

  3·5

  501

  2·6

  1,225

  4·8

  n/a

  Denmark

  775

  4·5

  832

  4·2

  608

  2·4

  n/a

  Germany

  2,967

  17·3

  3,416

  17·5

  6,751

  26–5

  n/a

  Greece

  1,023

  6·0

  985

  5·0

  245

  1·0

  n/a

  Spain

  451

  2·6

  1,342

  6·9

  1,229

  4·8

  n/a

  France

  4,250

  24·7

  4,403

  22·5

  5,273

  20–7

  n/a

  Ireland

  754

  4·4

  789

  4·0

  243

  1·0

  n/a

  Italy

  2,919

  17·0

  3,086

  15·8

  3,734

  14·7

  n/a

  Luxembourg

  4

  0·02

  4

  0·02

  53

  0·2

  n/a

  Netherlands

  1,975

  11·5

  2,603

  13·3

  1,702

  6·7

  n/a

  Portugal

  127

  0·7

  175

  0·9

  246

  1·0

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  1,321

  7·7

  1,409

  7·2

  4,120

  16·2

  n/a

  Total European Communities

  17,175

  19,556

  35,349

  n/a=Fingers not available

  EC (Membership Cost)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date table M in his Department's submission to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the "Financial and Economic Consequences of United Kingdom Membership of the European Economic Community" (HC Paper 57-II) of Session 1984–85.

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates are no longer prepared on the basis requested. Detailed information on the incomes, assets and liabilities of farm businesses by farm type and country is contained within the 1989 edition of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom," a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Guaranteed Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the ratio of the United Kingdom guaranteed price for(a) cereals, (b) dairy products, (c) oils and fats and (d) edible meats in: (i) 1988 and (ii) 1968.

  Mr. MacLean
  Details of guaranteed prices determined for 1968–69 are set out in the "Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees 1968" (Cmnd. 3558) pp 44–45, which is available in the Library of the House. Information on support prices for 1988–89 is contained in the note on common agricultural policy prices settlement 1988–89 which was deposited in the Library of the House on 4 August 1988.
  94
  Mr. Maclean
  The attached table shows by member state the amount and percentage share of expenditure from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) in 1987 and 1988, and the amount and percentage share of own resource payments in 1987. Own resource figures for 1988 are not available as the European Court of Auditors report for 1988 will not be published by the Commission until December 1989.

  Zoonoses Testing
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent(a) broiler chickens, (b) turkeys and (c) egg-laying flocks have been subject to zoonoses testing; and why there are differences in the frequency thereof.

  Mr. Curry
  The Testing of Poultry Flocks Order 1989 requires all commercial laying flocks of domestic fowls, and flocks over 25 birds supplying eggs or birds for breeding purposes, to be tested for salmonella at eight-week intervals. These requirements, introduced as part of the Government's measures to tackle the problem of salmonella in eggs, are shortly to be replaced by new provisions which inter alia will extend the requirements relating to breeding flocks to cover turkeys.

  There is no requirement for testing of broiler birds but the provisions on breeding flocks apply to broiler breeders and will be used as the basis for necessary control measures when infection is found.

  New Zealand Lamb
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the Official Report the landed price before payment of duty of imports of New Zealand lamb in 1988, 1978 and 1968 together with (i) the average New Zealand export price, (ii) the corresponding price paid to British farmers, (iii) imports from New Zealand and Australia and (iv) United Kingdom production, imports, exports and consumption of sheepmeat.

  Mr. Curry
  The average cif price (the nearest equivalent to a 'landed' price) for New Zealand lamb was 103 pence/kg (p/kg) in 1988. No figures are available for 1968 and 1978 or for average fob export prices.
  95
  The average prices (including variable premium) paid to British farmers for lamb have been as follows:

  Year

  P/kg (estimated dressed carcase weight)

  1968

  140

  1978

  137

  1988

  222

  1 Decimal equivalent

  (Source: Agriculture in the United Kingdom)

  Imports from New Zealand:

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  1968

  320,608

  1978

  213,610

  1988

  112,260

  (Source: HM Customs and Excise)

  Imports from Australia:

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  1968

  16,638

  1978

  11,551

  1989

  6,979

  (Source: HM Customs and Excise)

  United Kingdom production:

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  1968

  246,000

  1978

  248,000

  1988

  345,000

  (Source: Agriculture in the United Kingdom)

  United Kingdom imports:

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  1968

  352,596

  1978

  227,083

  1988

  121,469

  (Source: HM Customs and Excise)

  United Kingdom exports:

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  1968

  8,019

  1978

  42,509

  1988

  85,243

  (Source: HM Customs and Excise)

  United Kingdom domestic uses:

  Year

  Quantity (tonnes)

  1968

  586,000

  1978

  409,000

  1988

  372,000

  (Source: Agriculture in the United Kingdom)

  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions the Forestry Commission awarded grants under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in England, between its inception 96
  in 1985 and closure in 1988; and on how many occasions the grant of £100 for obtaining professional advice, in the preparation of a plan of operation under the scheme, was awarded.

  Mr. Maclean
  To date, the Forestry Commission has approved 5,159 applications for grant under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in England. The grant of £100 has been paid on 830 of those applications.

  Animals (Import and Export)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will tabulate in the Official Report all existing animal health and disease checks, restrictions, examinations, or certifications concerning import and export of all live animals and birds to and from the United Kingdom, with reference to their respective statutory bases, together with the relevant proposals of the Commission of the European Economic Community contained in, or foreshadowed by, documents 4183/89, 4830/89 and 5057/89 indicating in each case, whether the proposed changes are acceptable or unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Curry
  It would be impracticable to publish in the Official Report the hundreds of import licences and export certificates which exist.

  Our import conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of animal disease, and relate to the species concerned and the animal health status of the countries of origin. Among other things we may require an appropriate pre-export testing and isolation and post-import quarantine, post-import isolation plus testing.

  For exports, the requirements depend on European Community rules where they exist and in other cases on those of the authorisation of the countries of destination.

  The statutory basis for import licences and export certification are derived from the following orders:
  Importation of Animals Order 1977
  Importation of Birds, Poultry and Hatching Eggs Order 1979
  Importation of Equine Animals Order 1979
  Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974
  Exportation of Pigeons Order 1983
  The Diseases of Animals (Export Health Certificates) Order 1985

  As to the EC Commission's proposals for harmonised animal health rules for trade in sheep and goats (document 4183/89), bovine embryos (document 4389/89), and poultry and hatching eggs (document 5057/89) I refer the hon. Member to the explanatory memoranda, copies of which were deposited in the Library and to the debate on them which took place on 18 July at columns 294–315.

  Herbicide Resistance
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department was represented at the 11th Long Ashton international symposium on herbicide resistance in weeds and crops.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry was represented by four members of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (one of whom gave an invited talk at the symposium dinner).

  Warm Water Fish
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made any assessment of the findings of the Marine Biological Association and Plymouth marine laboratory released in August, that there have been significant increases in warm water fish species found off the south-west coast of the British Isles.

  Mr. Curry
  I am aware of the long hydro-biological time series referred to. Changes occur continuously for many reasons. We keep the matter under review.

  National Fruit Collection
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what areas have been identified in relation to(a) climate and (b) soil conditions as a successor-home to Brogdale for the national fruit collection; what representations he has had from Wye college for taking responsibility for Brogdale; and what is his cost estimate of taking four grafts of every specimen or variety and replanting them in suitable soil conditions, on a site other than Brogdale.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry is in negotiation with two organisations, the East Mailing Trust and Wye college, which have both expressed an interest in taking on the management of the national fruit collection. This would involve moving the collection from Brogdale to either East Mailing or Wye respectively. Consideration of these two sites will include an assessment of the suitability of climate and soil conditions. The costs of moving the collection by propagation and replanting will vary depending on the precise arrangements but initial estimates suggest that the total costs (including all materials and labour) could be of the order of £100,000 to £150,000, which would be spread over a four or five-year period.

  Agricultural Research Centres
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agriculture research centres are funded by his Ministry.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the reply, 29 June 1989, c. 550]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I have decided that the horticultural research and development carried out by the Agricultural and Food Research Council and by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service should be integrated under a reconstituted British Society for Horticultural Research. (BSHR).

  This will he headed by a small and strong executive committee, reporting to me and reflecting the tripartite partnership of my Department, my right hon. Friend's funding of the Agricultural and Food Research Council and growers, each of whom will have equal representation. Members of the committee, which will include growers, will be appointed by me and my right hon. Friend. Growers will thus have an influential and effective voice in the new organisation, which will be able to receive funds directly from a range of sources including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the industry.

  The BSHR will have available to it the facilities at six horticultural research centres. These will be Wellesbourne (which, as already announced, will become the principal
  98
  horticultural research station), East Mailing (centre for fruit and other perennial crops research and development), the centre for hops research at Wye college, and the experimental horticulture stations at Kirton, Efford and Stockbridge house. The new organisation will bring together the expertise and effort of staff drawn from the AFRC and from ADAS.

  The Government believe that bringing the elements of horticultural research and development together in this way will provide a sound basis for the future. Naturally, the Government's support for the BSHR will be influenced by the industry's response, since growers' support will be essential to provide the balanced programme of research and development needed to safeguard the future of British horticulture in a highly competitive international market. We believe that this new integrated organisation will command the confidence of the industry. We are sure that all the partners will work together to bring about a successful launch.

  Fisheries
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent his duties towards conservation and enhancement of natural beauty under section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 extend to fisheries matters; and if he will make a statement on the implication of these duties where they impact on fishing and fish stock management.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 26 July 1989]: My duties under section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 are concerned with agriculture not fisheries. However, in dealing with fisheries we are concerned with conservation of fish stocks in order to manage them as renewable resources. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to a previous reply given on 21 July 1989, Official Report, column 408.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Palace of Westminster
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the current cost of maintaining and running the House of Lords.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The provision required in the current year 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990, for the expenditure of the House of Lords on peers' expenses, administrative costs, staff pensions and security totals £15,260,000.

  Notes

  (i) Stationery and printing cost for the House of Lords are borne on an allied service vote maintained by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Provision for the 1989–90 totals £4,800,000.

  (ii) Other services provided in support of both Houses of Parliament are:

  (a) Rates on Government Property (HM Treasury) Provision for 1989–90 totals £1,200,0001

  (b) Accommodation services (Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment) Provision for 1989–90 totals £25,300,0001

  1 No separate figures are available here in respect of the amounts attributable to each House.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Hannan
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether right hon. and hon. Members will be entitled to reclaim the standard community charge on a second home under the additional costs allowance.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what arrangements are being made to provide an allowance to members of Parliament for the payment of the standard community charge on their second homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The additional cost allowance covers expenses necessarily incurred by hon. Members in maintaining a second home required for the performance of their parliamentary duties. From April 1990, the standard community charge will be one of the costs which may be incurred in maintaining a second home. In cases where there is a liability for a standard charge hon. Members will therefore be able to claim reimbursement in circumstances where they would previously have claimed for rates. Hon. Members will still pay the personal community charge at their main residence and there is no question of reimbursing this. The Fees Office will be writing to all hon. Members shortly to explain these arrangements In detail.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Spending Power
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if on a similar basis to his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Mr. Madden) on 22 June,Official Report, columns 575–80, he will publish figures showing the average total weekly benefit payable to Mr. Swainston, 3 Hawthorn Park, Brandon, Durham, before and after the social security reforms of April were completely phased in.

  Mr. Scott
  I have written to the hon. Member.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, in establishing a single budget to cover the costs of care, he proposes to take account of the existence of the independent living fund and allow it to continue funding individual disabled people to enable them to buy in the personal care they need to avoid institutionalisation.

  Mr. Scott
  The independent living fund has been very effective in its current form. Clearly, we will need to consider, and if necessary discuss with the trustees, whether the Government's proposals for the future organisation and funding of community care call for any adjustment to the fund.

  Disability Pension (Self-employed People)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why self-employed persons are ineligible to claim disability pension.

  Mr. Scott
  The arguments for preferential industrial injuries benefit for self-employed people are not as strong 100
  as they are for employees. The consideration that a person is acting under orders does not apply and, since there is no employer, there is no place for a preferential scheme to complement and limit the employer's liability at common law.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department is examining ways in which a partial capacity benefit for disabled people could be introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  In examining existing benefit provision against the findings of the OPCS surveys, we shall consider the need for a partial incapacity benefit.

  Income Support
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest figures for the number of people on income support who had direct deductions for(a) electricity and (b) gas.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of cases with deductions for electricity and gas is as follows:

  Number

  Electricity

  152,000

  Gas

  152,000

  Where a person has deductions for both electricity and gas, they are included in both figures.

  Source Annual Statistical Enquiry, May 1988.

  Attendance Allowance (Assessments)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical practitioners examine patients for attendance allowance; how many of these are principals in general practice; how many of these are retired medical practitioners; how many of them are medical practitioners without other remuneration; how many of them have a specialist psychiatric qualification; and how many of them have training in psychiatry lasting six months or more.

  Mr. Scott
  There are 3,742 examining medical practitioners (EMPs) in Great Britain who examine patients for attendance allowance. Of these it is estimated that 82 per cent. are principals in general practice and 16 per cent. are retired medical practitioners. No information is held on the number of EMPs without other remuneration.

  Data on the numbers of EMPs possessing a specialist psychiatric qualification or having post-graduate training in psychiatry are not routinely recorded; and to obtain such information would incur a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical practitioners, annually, are discharged from their responsibilities for assessing for attendance allowance, because of their incompetence in obtaining psychiatric histories or undertaking mental state examinations.

  Mr. Scott
  No central record is kept of the reasons for discontinuing the services of examining medical prac-tioners for attendance allowance. Doctors are carefully
  101
  chosen before starting this work. They are given instruction in the requirements for the examinations, their work is monitored and any further training required is given. It is very rare therefore for these doctors' services to be discontinued because of incompetence.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what specific instructions are given in the form of guidelines, in the obtaining of a psychiatric history or examination of mental state;

  (2) what training in the eliciting of a psychiatric history or in mental state examination is provided by the Department to practitioners prior to or consequent upon their appointment to assess patients for attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Doctors selected to examine attendance allowance claimants are usually recruited from among general practitioners within the locality who will have demonstrable knowledge of local socio-economic conditions, established experience in general medical practice and evident expertise in conducting medical examinations. Guidance is given by the regional office senior medical officer (ROSMO), or regional office medical officer (ROMO), on the background of, and conditions for the award of attendance allowance.

  The performance of new examining doctors is closely monitored by the ROSMO who will institute further training sessions as appropriate; thereafter doctors' reports are regularly monitored to identify any further need for guidance. The form, nature and pattern of such monitoring may vary and are dictated by the individual ROSMO.

  In conducting an examination for attendance allowance purposes the examining doctor's principal role is to complete the standard report form which has been designed to give an account of the patient's needs for attention and/or supervision. By their very nature the medical examinations required for the purpose of determining eligibility for these allowances need the expertise and experience possessed by general medical practitioners who are able to give consistent advice across a wide range of disabilities and age-groups. In the small number of cases where a specialist opinion is required an independent report is sought from a consultant clinician with the necessary specialist knowledge. The attendance allowance board or its delegate has access not only to the examining doctor's report but other evidence considered necessary, such as psychological, head teacher's and hospital's reports etc. The present arrangements thus allow for suitably qualified persons to be approached, as necessary, in an individual case.

  The attendance allowance board has also issued a "Handbook For Delegated Medical Practitioners" a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. That handbook, together with the written guidelines given to examining medical practitioners upon appointment, describe the medical factors which should be taken into account in the obtaining of a psychiatric history from, and examination of mental state of, those claimants who exhibit mental disorders. As with physical illness, neither the diagnosis nor the disability is the determining criterion in the assessment for attendance allowance. The attendance needs are the determining factor.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what system there is for checking 102
  independently, by a medical practitioner with psychiatric experience, that assessments for attendance allowance have been carried out competently.

  Mr. Scott
  All reports of medical examinations conducted on claimants for attendance allowance are scrutinised either by the attendance allowance board or by the independent medical practitioners to whom the board has delegated its powers to make decisions in individual cases. The board, one of whose members is a consultant psychiatrist, recognises that the assessment of the amount of attention and/or supervision required by patients suffering from psychiatric illnesses may pose particular problems. Guidance has been issued by the board in the "Handbook for Delegated Medical Practitioners", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1988. Aided by the board's guidelines and possessing expertise and experience in the practice of clinical medicine and in the evaluation of medical reports on claimants for attendance allowance, the board's delegated doctors provide an expert and efficient check that attendance allowance assessments are carried out competently.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show for England, Wales, Scotland and Great Britain his latest estimates of(a) the rate rebate caseload, (b) the cost of rate rebates, (c) the community charge benefit caseload, (d) the number of individuals likely to claim and receive community charge rebates and (e) the cost of community charge rebates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The most recent estimates for 1989–90 show that the rate rebate caseload in Great Britain (including the community charge rebate in Scotland) will be about 51½million, and the total benefit cost (including the cost of community charge rebate in Scotland) will be £1·53 billion.

  I will write to the hon. Member in due course about the remainder of his question.

  Social Security Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of the retirement pension for a single person and a married couple as a proportion of average net earnings for all males and all male manual workers for each year between November 1978 and the latest date available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is as follows:

  Basic state pension as a percentage of average net earnings

  Uprating date

  Male manual workers

  All males

  Single

  Couple

  Single

  Couple s

  November 1978

  32·3

  48·9

  29·8

  45·3

  November 1979

  31·8

  48·4

  29·2

  44·6

  November 1980

  32·8

  49·7

  29·1

  44·4

  November 1981

  33·4

  50·9

  29·3

  44·9

  November 1982

  35·0

  53·1

  30·6

  46·7

  November 1983

  33·1

  49·7

  28·7

  43·6

  November 1984

  32·9

  49·6

  28·4

  43·2

  November 1985

  33·1

  49·9

  28·5

  43·3

  July 1986

  31·6

  47·7

  26·9

  41·0

  April 1987

  30·1

  45·7

  25·3

  38·8

  April 1988

  28·4

  43·3

  23·5

  36·2

  April 1989

  27·6

  42·1

  22·9

  35·0

  Source: Abstract of statistics, published by DSS August 1989.
  103
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of unemployment benefit for a single person, a married couple and a married couple with two children under 11 years as a proportion of average net earnings for all males and all male manual workers for each year between November 1978 and the latest date available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is published in tables 6.1a and 6.1b of the August 1989 edition of the "Abstract of Statistics for Index of Retail Prices, Average Earnings, Social Security Benefits and Contributions", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the value of income support in 1989–90 for(a) a single person aged under 25 years, (b) a single person aged over 25 years, (c) a married couple, (d) a one-parent family, (e) a married couple with two children aged four years and six years, (f) a pensioner couple aged 65 years and (g) a disabled person with entitlement to disability premium as a proportion of average net earnings for all males and male manual workers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on categories(a), (b), (c) and (e) is at tables 6.5a and 6.5b of the August 1989 edition of the "Abstract of Statistics for Index of Retail Prices, Average Earnings, Social Security Benefits and Contributions", a copy of which is in the Library. The information requested for the remaining categories is as follows:

  Income support as a percentage of average net earnings

  All males

  Manual Males

  (d) (One parent family with one child under age 11)

  27·8

  33·0

  (f)

  36·3

  43·4

  (g)

  25·5

  30·8

  War Widows
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters he has received from right hon. and hon. Members over the last six months concerning pension provision for war widows; and how many of these letters were from the hon. Member for Macclesfield.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since 1 April, we have received 253 letters concerning war widows pensions, 187 of which were from the honourable Member for Macclesfield.

  ACC, Livingston
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the contract with Electronic Data Systems for the Livingston area computer centre provides for existing staff of his Department to be considered for employment with EDS; and what safeguards are proposed for the existing terms and conditions of any staff so transferred and for recognition of negotiating rights.

  Mr. Newton
  Details of the new jobs were circulated to the staff of the existing unemployment benefit computer centre in the other half of Buchanan house and no bar was placed in the way of their applications. Staff who choose 104
  to accept offers from Electronic Data Systems (EDS) will resign from the Civil Service and accrued rights will be treated in the normal way for resignations. The terms, conditions and negotiation rights offered by EDS are a matter for the company.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of raising child benefit in April 1990 in line with the projection of the retail prices index between December 1988 and September 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The index of retail prices (RPI) increased by 5·7 per cent. between December 1988 and September 1989. The net cost of increasing child benefit by 5·7 per cent. would be around £200 million.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the 1989–90 social fund allocation for each London local office and the monthly rate of expenditure for(a) grants, (b) loans and (c) community care groups; what additional resources he has made available to each office; and what are his projections for 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of social fund allocations to local offices together with details of their monthly expenditure on grants and loans are available in the Library. Information on expenditure in relation to client groups for all London local offices can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Additional social fund loan allocations for 1989–90 have been made from the contingency reserve to five local offices in London to take account of the unforeseen additional expenditure arising from the arrival of Kurdish refugees in the areas covered by those offices. The revised annual loan allocations are as follows:

  Revised allocation £

  Amount of increase £

  Highgate

  419,845

  28,226

  Shoreditch

  352,401

  9,867

  Stoke Newington

  325,467

  16,791

  Tottenham

  534,260

  93,881

  Wood Green

  220,424

  18,991

  An announcement on the local office allocations for 1990–91 will be made nearer the time.

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about changing the system of maintenance payments by deducting the sums due from earnings at the same time as income tax and national insurance, enabling these payments to be made direct to the recipients; whether he has any estimates of the reduction of dependency on income support such a system would produce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received no representations on this point although I am aware that it has been suggested by various organisations and commentators. Absent fathers have a legal responsibility towards their families but, for
  105
  three quarters of lone parents receiving income support, the absent parent pays no maintenance at all. When courts make maintenance orders they take into account, amongst other things, the means of both parents and therefore the ability of the non-custodial parent to pay maintenance. In certain cases where the father fails to make payments ordered by the courts, and this is due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect, the courts may make an attachment of earnings order. This means that the maintenance payments are paid to the court by the employer. Any increase in the maintenance collected for lone parent families on benefit would certainly reduce their need for benefit. However the extent of this would depend on the levels of maintenance awarded and collected.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about increasing the earned income allowance for single parents; what estimates he has of the reduction in the numbers of single parents who would receive income support following such an increase in the allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Many representations are received by Government on all aspects of taxation. Reductions in personal taxation like those made by this Government should generally be improving individuals' incentives to work. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that income tax reductions have helped raise the take-home pay of lone parents who choose to work, I know of no evidence

  Date

  Change

  Legislation

  1 April 1989

  To enable community charge recipients to be eligible for Social Fund funeral payments.

  The Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 379.

  1 April 1989

  Boarders no longer treated as non-dependants for Housing Benefit or Income Support purposes but similar standard deductions from Housing Benefit/housing costs to be made.

  Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 416 Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 534.

  1 April 1989

  Complementary change to other income disregards to reflect the separate status of boarders and non-dependants in Housing Benefit.

  Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 416.

  1 April 1989

  Complementary provision to the introduction of an 'enhanced' pensioner premium to ensure that working pensioners getting the enhanced premium retain a £15 earnings disregard if underlying entitlement to the disability premium remains.

  Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulation 1989 SI No 416.

  1 April 1989

  Extension of disregard of a former dwelling to a former partner with care of one or more dependent children

  Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 416.

  1 April 1989

  Introduction of the rent officer referral arrangements.

  Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No 2 Regulation 1989 SI No 566.

  The Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989 SI No 590 The Rent Officers (Additional Functions) (Scotland) Order 1989 SI No 578.

  1 April 1989

  Introduction of Community Charge Rebates in Scotland.

  Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 SI No 1890 (S 178).

  106
  suggesting that an increase in the additional personal allowance would substantially reduce the number of lone parent families receiving income support.

  Bathgate Local Office
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many short fixed-term temporary staff have been employed by the social security office in Bathgate over any convenient period in the summer of the current year, and for what reasons; and if he will make a statement on the qualifications of such staff.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Prior to 11 September 1989 no temporary staff were employed on a fixed-term contract basis at this office. In the period 11 September to 9 October up to nine such staff were employed at any one time. The recruits were offered fixed-term contracts, rather than permanent positions, in view of the need to reduce staffing levels in 1990 when major computerisation is introduced. Temporary staff on fixed-term contracts are required to have similar qualifications to those employed on a permanent basis.

  Benefits
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the changes made to social security benefits since April and those proposed to the end of 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: The information following lists the changes made to Social Security benefits since April 1989 and proposed changes to the end of 1989–90 which have been announced.
  107

  Date

  Change

  Legislation

  1 April 1989

  Amendments to the above scheme including the introductions of extra help for some pensioners from October.

  Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 361 (S 37)

  1 April 1989

  Permit deductions from Income Support in respect of arrears of community charge in certain circumstances (Scotland).

  Community Charge (Deductions from Income Support) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 SI No 507 (S 59).

  10 April 1989

  Introduction of Retirement Allowance to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.

  Schedule 2 of the Social Security Act 1988.

  10 April 1989

  Annual Uprating of Social Security benefits.

  Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 1989 SI No 43. Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 1989.

  10 April 1989

  Clarification of the definition of incapacity for the purpose of entitlement to the disability premium.

  Income Support (General) Amendment No 2 Regulations 1988 SI No 2022.

  10 April 1989

  Special Income Support provisions for people living in board and lodging accommodation removed. Accommodation charge met through Housing Benefit, boarders entitled to normal Income Support to cover living expenses.

  Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations No 4 1988 SI No 1445.

  19 June 1989

  Certain additional days of entitlement to SSP to count as qualifying days towards entitlement to invalidity benefit.

  Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 872.

  19 June 1989

  Persons incapable of work for two days within a period of six consecutive days because of treatment by way of plasmapheresis chemotherapy with cytotoxic drugs or radiotherapy to qualify for incapacity benefits even when treatment is not on a weekly basis.

  Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 872.

  10 July 1989

  Disregard of part of student's grant income for books and equipment raised from £220 to £234 for Family Credit purposes.

  Family Credit and Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 1034.

  10 July 1989

  To provide for the disregard in the calculation of Family Credit, Housing Benefit and Income Support payments made by local authorities under the Child Care Act 1980 and the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to young people leaving care.

  Family Credit and Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No. 1034.Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1989 SI No. 1017.

  10 July 1989

  Increase in personal allowance for all 16 to 17 year old Housing Benefit claimants to £27·40.

  Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1989 SI No. 1017.

  10 July 1989

  Extension of entitlement for people aged 16 to 17 and people in relevant education who are of necessity living away from their parents.

  Family Credit and Income Support (General) Amendment Regulation 1989 SI No. 1034.

  10 July 1989

  Increases in applicable amount for some claimants aged 16 to 17.

  Family Credit and Income Support (General) Amendment Regulation 1989 SI No. 1034.

  10 July 1989

  Eligibility for all urgent cases including asylum seekers to premiums where the normal conditions are satisfied.

  Family Credit and Income Support (General) Amendment Regulation 1989 SI No. 1034.

  10 July 1989

  Further amendments to Community Charge Rebates in Scotland.

  Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) No. 2 Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No. 972 (S 95).

  21 July 1989

  Substitutes the concept of entitlement for payment into Attendance Allowance in Section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975.

  Schedule 8 of Social Security Act 1989.

  August 1989

  Controls subsidy paid to local authorities in certain special cases.

  Housing Benefit (Permitted Totals) Amendment Order 1989

  September 1989

  Special transitional provisions for the smooth implementation of the Community Charge Benefit scheme

  Community Charge Benefits (Transitional) Order 1989.

  108

  109

  Date

  Change

  Legislation

  1 October 1989

  Abolition of State Retirement Pension Earnings rule.

  Clause 7 and Schedule 1 of Social Security Bill 1989.

  9 October 1989

  Days on which duties as a councillor performed to be treated as days of incapacity for work for sickness and invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance purposes.

  Paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 of Social Security Act 1989.

  9 October 1989

  Extension of upper age limit for payment of mobilty allowance from 75 to 80.

  Schedule 8 of Social Security Act 1989.

  9 October 1989

  Personal Pensions to be treated as earnings for purposes of dependants earnings rule.

  Schedule 9 of Social Security Act 1989.

  9 October 1989

  Liability of non-custodial parents to maintain a child for Income Support and Social Fund purposes extended to include children aged 16, 17 and 18.

  Schedule 5 of Social Security Act 1989.

  9 October 1989

  Introduce 'enhanced' pensioner premium for pensioners aged 75 and over and uprate higher pensioner premium. Provide for continued award of higher pensioner premium if maximum age for award of qualifying benefit is reached or if retirement pension is awarded. Increased higher pensioner premium for people aged 60 to 74.

  Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 416 Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 SI No 534.

  9 October 1989

  Transitional protection to be unaffected by increases in pensioner premiums.

  Regulations in preparation.

  9 October 1989

  Provisions for seasonal workers' earnings will be removed, so they will be treated like other claimants' earnings.

  Draft Income Support (General) Amendment No 2 Regulations 1989 (SI No N/A).

  9 October 1989

  Payment of compensation received on termination of employment without due notice to be taken into account.

  Income Support (General) Amendment No 2 Regulations 1989 (SI No N/A).

  9 October 1989

  Changes in Unemployment Benefit; (i) abatement of Unemployment benefit in respect of personal pensions; (ii) concept of 'actively seeking work; (iii) conditions for requalifi-cation after benefit is exhausted; (iv) treatment of payments in lieu of notice; (v) restricted availability; (vi) introduction of permitted period and taking up employment on trial; (vii) removal of the concept of 'suitable employment', putting the accent on 'good cause'.

  Schedule 8–12 of Social Security Act 1989.

  9 October 1989

  Special IS provision for hostel dwellers removed. Help with accommodation charge through HB, hosted dwellers entitled to normal IS to cover living expenses.

  Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1989 (SI No 534).

  Autumn 1989

  Removal of special conditions for seasonal workers.

  Draft Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment No 2 Regulations 1989 (SI No N/A).

  Autumn 1989

  Introduction of an upper weekly earnings limit for Unemployment Benefit

  Not known.

  Autumn 1989

  Introduction of a de minimus level on the application of the 'Full Extent Normal' rule for Unemployment Benefit

  Not known.

  Autumn 1989

  Regulations requiring local authorities to refer appropriate cases to the rent officer.

  Regulations to be made under provisions contained in clause 15 of the Social Security Bill.

  1 April 1990

  Introduction of Community Charge Benefit throughout Great Britain.

  Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989.

  1 April 1990

  Permit deductions from Income Support in respect of arrears of community charge in certain circumstances.

  Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) Regulations 1989.

  110

  111

  Date

  Change

  Legislation

  April 1990

  £5 a week disregard of war Disablement Pension and War Widow's Pension to be increased to £10 for Income Support purposes.

  Not known.

  Community Care
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recommendations for early action he is giving to local authorities social services departments in the light of the statement and White Paper on community care.

  Mr. David Mellor
  [holding answer 28 July 1989]: We are currently preparing our White Paper on community care. We will then consider the need for further guidance.

  Pensions (Qualifying Age)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the cost at current rates of equalising the qualifying age for receipt of basic pension for both sexes at(a) 62 years, (b) 61 years and (c) 60 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 24 July 1989]: The information is not available in the form requested. The most recent estimates, which are based on 1985–86 benefit rates, are that the approximate net annual cost to public funds of equalising state pension age at 60 years would be £3,000 million.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sizewell C Power Station
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received during the recess about the Central Electricity Generating Board applications to build Sizewell C power station in Suffolk.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has received eight letters and two postcards which were forwarded to the Department of Energy, which has responsibility for this matter, for a reply.

  Environmental Assessments
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department has received from the European Commission concerning the environmental assessment of projects being funded by, or the subject of a grant application for, European regional development funds; and if he will place copies of the guidance in the Library.

  Mr. Moynihan
  All projects funded with grant from the European regional development fund must conform to Community environmental legislation, in particular, the European Community directive (85/337/EEC) on environ-mental impact assessment. Guidance on how the directive applies to projects in England and Wales which required planning permission is given in DOE circular 15/88 (Welsh Office 23/88) which is available in the Library. Requirements for environmental informaion to be submitted to the Commission are still the subject of discussion among all member states.

  Water Authorities (Debt)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside of 24 May,Official Report, column 951, if he will make a further statement concerning the treatment of outstanding debt of the water authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  Shortly before flotation, we will be writing off the £4·4 billion National Loans Fund debt transferred from the English water authorities to the new English water plcs. This will be replaced with new securities issued to the Government, including new debentures, but mostly in the form of shares to be sold to the public. This substantial capital reconstruction which involves a sizeable cash injection will enable the companies to finance the major investment in the future which we all want to see.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Local Government and Housing Bill to include all or any of the safeguards found in the Poll Tax (Restoration of Individual Privacy) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. The existing legislation gives community charge registration officers clearly defined and limited powers to collect information necessary for their statutory functions.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions since 1979 a request to call in a planning application from(a) the Nature Conservancy Council and (b) the Countryside Commission has been refused; and if he will list such occasions, together with the reasons for not calling in, and the principal requests received on those occasions from other persons and bodies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Kurdish Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities, local authority associations and hon. Members concerning the needs of Kurdish asylum seekers; what resources he has made available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have received a number of representations about the impact of the recent influx of Turkish asylum-seekers. Housing benefit for which local authorities receive Government subsidy, and income support are payable to individual claimants and help has
  113
  been provided from the social fund in the form of crisis loans. In addition, the Government are making exceptional payments to voluntary organisations. Ministers are currently considering the representations which have been made for additional assistance to the boroughs.

  Waste Paper (Recycling)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make urgent inquiries of the contractor responsible for the removal of House of Commons rubbish as to why quantities of large paper bags, filled with potentially recyclable waste paper, have been removed in bags labelled for burning only; if he will take steps to stop this practice immediately; if he will make available bags labelled recyclable waste paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Waste paper from the Palace of Westminster is collected free of charge as "salvage" and the contractor sends it for recycling. The labels on the paper sacks therefore have no significance in practice. It would be wasteful, however, not to use the outstanding supplies of these sacks before changing over to new sacks which will be marked "Recyclable Waste Paper".

  Toxic Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has assessed the use of biotechnologically created bacteria to treat poisonous organic toxic wastes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 1975 we have been sponsoring research on the use of bacteria to treat difficult wastes, using their natural genetic changes. We are monitoring closely current developments in genetic manipulation.

  Environmental Regulation
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department is participating in the international conference on environmental regulation in the European Community held in London on 19 and 20 October.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  An official of the Department will participate in the conference.

  Waste Management
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department had any representation at the conference on raising standards in wastes manage-ment: future costs and benefits, held at Lancaster university on 21 September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I represented my right hon. Friend and delivered the opening address at the conference.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department was represented at the fifth European summer school on radioactive waste manage-ment, held on 17 to 20 July, at Christ's college, Cambridge.
  114
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A principal inspector from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution delivered a paper to the 1989 European summer school in a personal capacity.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what departmental representation there was at the fifth assembly of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics held at Reading university in July and August; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the assembly in regard to United Kingdom policies on the greenhouse effect.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I addressed the conference during the opening ceremony and a scientist from the Department attended on the first day. The discussions at the conference highlighted the need for further research on the greenhouse effect. The Government are already committed to over £10 million of such research in this financial year and are planning a continuing programme of projects.

  PCB Wastes
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what import and disposal authorisation had been granted for the cargoes of PCB wastes sent from Canada in August on the ships Khudozhnik Saryan and the Madezha Obukhoba to the ports of Tilbury and Liverpool.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Imports of hazardous wastes into this country are governed by the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. These require the waste disposal authority responsible for the facility receiving the waste to give its approval. A copy of the completed consignment note must be sent to the Secretary of State. These do not identify the ship on which any particular consignment is to be carried, but we have no reason to think that these two shipments were not properly notified.

  Disposal of wastes is governed by the licensing of facilities by the waste disposal authority under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Waste Exports
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what volumes of toxic, hazardous or special wastes have been exported from the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 for treatment and disposal abroad; and to which countries the waste was sent.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Firm information has been available only since the implementation in October 1988 of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. These require, inter alia, that before any consignment of hazardous waste is transported to or from this country, the holder of the waste sends a copy of the completed consignment note to the Secretary of State. The Department has received no consignment notes for exports to date.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has no knowledge of any waste being exported before the implementation of the Transfrontier Regulations in 1988.

  Nature Reserves
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the progress of his plans for the change of status of national nature reserves.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have no plans to change the status of national nature reserves. The Nature Conservancy Council is considering how future policy for national nature reserves can continue to be developed in the light of both the council's preliminary report which was published in May this year, and of the Government's proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council which were announced in July.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement as to his intentions regarding future funding of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government will continue to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council receives adequate funding to enable its agreed objectives and programmes for conservation work to be met. The Government have secured an increase in real terms of over 150 per cent. in the Nature Conservancy Council's grant since 1979.

  EC Water Directives
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what system of checks and inspections is used by the Commission of the European Economic Community in respect of compliance with directives concerning the quality of domestic water supplies; what information is supplied to it by member states on their water undertakings; and what comprehensive publication of performance is published by the Commission.

  Mr. Howard
  No inspections at first hand are carried out by the Commission to ensure that member states are complying with the drinking water directive. In the United Kingdom the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 116
  made under the Water Act 1989 incorporate the provisions of the directive into national law and set out sampling requirements, the results of which will be made available to the public and to local authorities.

  The Commission depends upon information submitted by member states themselves and also investigates complaints on alleged breaches of the directive made by members of the public. We have no knowledge as to information supplied by other member states, but the United Kingdom has always co-operated fully with the Commission. We have recently submitted an overview of the United Kingdom's national programme costing £1·4 billion over the next five years. I am not aware of any comprehensive publication of performance published by the Commission.

  Sewers (Vermin Control)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state those provisions of legislation which aspire to future responsibility for control and destruction of vermin in sewers owned by the new water plcs.

  Mr. Howard
  Under section 67 of the Water Act 1989, the water service companies which have succeeded the water authorities have a general duty to cleanse and maintain their sewers. However, the primary responsibility for controlling vermin continues to rest with local authorities, which have a duty under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 to keep their areas free of rats and mice as far as practicable.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the planning inquiry into the east London river crossing bridge section to be reopened; what consideration may be given in the inquiry into alternative designs of bridge or reversion to the original, or other, tunnel proposals; and if he will make a statement concerning this adjourned inquiry.

  Mr. Howard
  I have written today to the hon. Member. I have also arranged for a copy of an announcement made earlier today to be placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Capital Punishment: Referendum Plea
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will arrange for a referendum at an early date on a proposal to restore capital punishment as a penalty for murder.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, only Parliament can change the law and the views of Parliament on this matter have been tested from time to time. The Government do not believe it to be a suitable subject for a referendum.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I share my noble friend's lack of general enthusiasm for referenda. However, is he aware that on a subject that is specifically left to the individual judgment of Members of another place and this House without any advice from their parties there is a special case for ascertaining, for the guidance of those people, what in fact is the opinion of our fellow countrymen?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that it is the duty of Members of another place to find out the opinions of their constituents on various matters. In a parliamentary democracy Members of Parliament are elected as representatives and not as delegates to reflect their constituents' views. Apart from anything else, national referenda were foreign to the United Kingdom until the Labour Party got into a muddle over its European Community policy and decided to have one.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some Members strongly hold the view that capital punishment is wrong? Is he further aware that that is always known by local people? I was one of those inclined to such a view and although people in my constituency may well have thought that capital punishment was right, nevertheless they returned me to Parliament with majorities of over 20,000?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord has many qualities that were attractive to his constituents other than his views on capital punishment.
Lord St. John Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Mr. Disraeli said, "England does not love coalitions and it likes referenda even less". With the greatest respect to my noble friend, since it is impracticable to reintroduce capital punishment, would it not be better to abandon that distraction
776
and concentrate on means of apprehending those who commit what is a terrible crime?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think I would go along with my noble friend's version of what Mr. Disraeli said. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is perfectly entitled to put his view. It is one held by many people in this country. I agree with my noble friend Lord. St. John of Fawsley that what is most important is to catch the criminals who commit the offences, to sentence them adequately and if possible to prevent them re-offending.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that Parliament had discussed this matter many times. Would he care to remind his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the House of Commons, after informed debate—which is not available in a referendum—four times over the past six years has produced substantial majorities against the idea of capital punishment? In those circumstances does he agree that it would be a good idea to administer capital punishment to the subject itself?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that there is much point in telling my noble friend what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already told him. I should simply like to correct the noble Lord's statement, in a rare opportunity not frequently given to me, and confirm that this subject has been discussed in another place five times in the past nine years.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, it is all very well for criminals to be apprehended. But what does the Minister think of the fact that they are let out after a certain time and then commit crime all over again? Is there not at least some case for considering capital punishment for certain types of murder? I should have thought that such a case must be taken on board.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is always a possibility. Parliament decided accordingly in about 1957. I remember that in another place Mr. Sydney Silverman introduced the Homicide Bill which permitted capital punishment for certain offences and not for others. I recall my noble friend the late Lord Conesford saying that if you wanted to dispose of your wife, under the Bill you must not shoot her or blow her up but if you stabbed, strangled or poisoned her, or set her on fire, you would be all right. Parliament concluded that that was not the most satisfactory way of implementing the death penalty provision, and that is why we no longer have it.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as I have organised a referendum, perhaps I may ask the Minister this question: leaving aside all the other objections which seem to me conclusive, does he agree that there is no point in holding a referendum unless the question posed is susceptible of being answered by a simple yes or no? Does he further agree that the number of unanswered consequential issues which would arise here means that this

777
proposal falls well short of meeting that criterion? To put it crudely, would the voter know whether he was voting for the execution of 16 year-old mental defectives, as seems to happen across the Atlantic?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. If a referendum is used—and it has been used in this country more on local issues than on national issues—it is on major constitutional matters such as devolution. The result is then incorporated in a Bill. However, a referendum can only give simple answers to simple questions. I agree with the noble Lord that capital punishment is not a simple issue.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl has a great sense of constitutional propriety. Will he allow to pass without comment the opinion of his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that there is a better case for holding a referendum when Members of the House of Commons are free to vote according to their consciences than when they are required to vote as they are told by their party Whips?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the drawbacks of a referendum is that it can go one way and the view of another place can go another way. If that were to happen, one would be undermining the authority of Parliament, because Parliament is the voice of the people. That is why referenda have not formed a major part of our constitutional process.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that if a Peer is tried by his fellow Peers he will not be executed, even with a silken cord?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is delving into history a little. She may be quite correct in saying that he would not be hanged with a silken cord, in particular if he is not allowed to be hanged at all.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not appear to be, that when it came to the decisions to which he referred another place did not have the advantage of knowing what the view of the public was? Is he also aware that there is some evidence that recent events—notably bombings and the shooting of policemen—have had an appreciable effect on public opinion on this difficult issue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because he reflects a view held by a great many people. However, if one is trying to achieve any alteration in the law, it has to come about via Parliament. On a subject as complex as this, so long as Parliament decides in its wisdom not to change the law, there is not much point in having a referendum which can give misguided views and can undermine the authority of Parliament.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that what irritates a number of people are the different penalties for murder and the sometimes
778
remarkable release of murderers? That seems to irritate more members of the public than the argument a propos capital punishment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all these issues create arguments. I can only tell the noble Lord this. When anyone goes to prison on a life sentence, a great deal of care is taken before he is let out.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Earl further correct the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips? A Peer can no longer be tried by his fellow Peers, as I well know, because in 1948 I was one of the two Peers who abolished this procedure.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that the noble Viscount was going to say that he was one of the two Peers who was tried by his fellow Peers. I am glad that that changed on the way through.

"National": Use in the UK
2.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the description "national" was used in the term "national curriculum" and the name "National Rivers Authority", neither of which applies to, or has effect in, Scotland.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the term "national" is used in the titles, of some 40 public bodies. Not all of them operate in Scotland. The national curriculum, or rivers authority, of England and Wales would perhaps be too cumbersome in a short title. Your Lordships' House had an opportunity to debate both those titles when the relevant legislation was before us.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I recognise the special problems in devising designations which clearly indicate the parts of the United Kingdom which are affected. Is he aware that many people in Scotland were misled into thinking that the national curriculum and therefore also the Education Reform Bill would apply to schools in Scotland and that the media have also experienced difficulties? I have with me an article from a daily United Kingdom newspaper describing the rivers authority several times as applying to the whole of Britain.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government were concerned to emphasise that there would be national coverage when the new rivers authority and the new curriculum were being set up. It is true that in both cases the proposals did not apply to Scotland. I regret the misunderstanding that my noble friend indicates has existed. The problem may be that we lack a term to describe both England and Wales when we are talking about them and not about Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, it was made clear both in the drafting and presentation of the Bills concerned and when the debates were taking place that the term did not include Scotland.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I noted very carefully what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said. But does he not agree on reflection that it would have been more appropriate to describe the curriculum as a state curriculum because it is imposed on the nations of England and Wales, but not on all schools, merely state schools, and not on independent schools?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it was imposed. It was the subject of a Bill which received the approval of both Houses of Parliament. For each subject so far being considered in the national curriculum the Secretary of State has sought advice from non-statutory working groups and there have been two rounds of statutory consultations. There has been plenty of opportunity for many different organisations and individuals to contribute to what has come forward.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I was not dissenting from the noble Lord. I was trying to help him.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend take on board that this is a constant source of irritation north of the Border? There is constant reference to Anglo-Argentine relations. Even worse, we hear about the Anglo-Irish agreement. It should either be the British-Irish or the UK-Irish agreement, and not Anglo. Is it not time that the Angles kept a bit quieter?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall take on board what my noble friend has said. But for the time being I must stick to my original reply, which was that there is some difficulty in this matter in choosing a term which refers to both England and Wales. In this case it did not, it is true, apply either to Scotland or to Northern Ireland.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that in Wales we find the term "nation" very acceptable?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The interests of Wales were served, I believe, in what was a contentious Bill. A distinguished former Secretary of State for Wales is chairman of the National Rivers Authority. There is an absolute undertaking that there will be a Welsh representative on the board of the National Rivers Authority. He is a distinguished professor. Statutorily written into the Bill was a provision that there had to be a special regional committee to keep an eye on the interests of Wales.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, did not the late General de Gaulle refer to us all and the Americans as "les Anglo-Saxons"?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that may very well be, but I am not entirely sure that that would please my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
Lord Grimond: My Lords is the noble Lord aware that his initial Answer does not carry complete
780
conviction? The fact that this mistake was made before is no reason for making it again, as we all know. There is no conceivable reason why the Bill should not refer simply to England and Wales. I know it is too long, but this is absurd especially in view of the general length of parliamentary drafting.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was present in the House when the matter was debated on the Water Bill and the name of the National Rivers Authority was the subject of an amendment. Despite the fact that my noble friend Lord Caithness invited noble Lords to come up with alternatives, no one did.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Ask.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he remembers that when the Bill was debated I made a suggestion that the authority should be called the National Rivers Authority for England and Wales? The reply received from the Minister was that it did not matter because Scots would not very often come across the term. That is the kind of disdain for Scottish sentiment which leads to so much trouble and which feeds Scottish nationalism and all its dangers.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, she is being a little less than generous because that is not the answer that I gave today. I gave a rather different answer because I looked back to see what had been said.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the House not agree that we seem to hear rather more about the Scots than we do about the Angles?
Lord Belstead: But it is always a pleasure, my Lords.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the point I am raising is not one of pedantic criticism but that the public in Scotland, one-tenth of our population, sometimes misread apparently casual designations as meaning that Scotland has been overlooked?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take seriously what my noble friend has said. Before we leave this Question, I come back to an original point that I made. The word "national" is used fairly indiscriminately. For example, we talk in England and Wales about national parks. But that is a term which is not used in Scotland. In Scotland, there is quite rightly great pride in the National Gallery and the National Library—once again those being terms used north of the Border. United Kingdom-wide, we talk about the National Health Service. We also talk about the national debt.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in the case of one of the places the noble Lord has mentioned, it is always called the National Gallery of Scotland.

Acid House Parties: Police Powers
2.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What extra powers they are contemplating giving to police forces to deal with the problems created by the increase of acid house parties throughout the country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the police have adequate powers to deal effectively with any criminal offence, including disorderly behaviour, which may occur at these parties, but we shall be discussing with chief officers whether any extra police powers are needed to prevent or to stop illegal parties from taking place.
We are reviewing the existing entertainment licensing and noise control laws in order to see whether the requirements and penalties need strengthening.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure he is aware of the nuisance and disturbance caused to residents in areas where these parties are held. While the Minister is having discussions with the Chief Constables' Association and the various local authorities, will he consider that the people who organise these parties should give adequate notice to give time for objection from residents, local authorities and anyone else who feels aggrieved about these parties being held in their districts or areas?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, that these parties create a great nuisance and a considerable amount of noise. There is already a requirement to give advance notice under the entertainment licensing laws, but the trouble is that people do not do that. The forces in the South-East have decided that a formal intelligence unit is needed to co-ordinate information about these parties. The important point is to know when the parties are to take place, and where. The purpose of the unit will be to give forces better warning of the likely parties in their areas and to target the main organisers.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why they are called acid parties?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think it is due to the kind of noise made by the music at the parties.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl graciously corrected me on the Question before last, so will he accept this respectful correction? I understand that "acid" is an American term for LSD. I was so informed by a noble Lord before I came to the House this afternoon. That is the reference.
Is the noble Earl aware that there is grave public concern about the growth of these parties and that the police are most anxious to have powers in two directions: first, that instead of leaving it to local authorities they should be allowed under a criminal
782
law, not yet in existence but encouraged to be in existence by the police, to be able to say that the noise nuisance if aggravated constitutes a criminal offence? Is he' also aware that owners of disused properties such as warehouses are being paid huge sums of money for permission for youngsters to congregate to hold these parties, where there is a great danger that fire and other disasters may occur? Will he accept that on this side of the House we should be happy to co-operate if there were short, sharp and quick legislation to deal with these matters?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his usual constructive manner. I am also appreciative of the fact that he corrected me, as he thought, over the terminology "acid" having something to do with LSD. I congratulate the noble Lord on being so up with the technological terms relating to these drugs. However, I should like to point out to the noble Lord that I too was under the impression that ac id referred to LSD. I am informed that it is not that but is the type of music that is played. There are not drugs at all acid house parties and therefore it would be wrong to consider that all such parties are drugs related. However, on occasions drugs have appeared.
Lord Parry: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry, but the noble Lord was good enough to correct me and I wanted to correct him. I shall take his points into account. but I remind him that under Section 58 of the Control of Pollution Act there are substantial penalties for breaking noise requirements. The penalty for breaching an order can be a fine of up to £2,000.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept the fact that the House has enjoyed this acid exchange?
Lord Monson: My Lords, one fully acknowledges the nuisance caused by some parties to local residents. However, does the Minister agree that throughout history the younger generation has enjoyed shocking the older generation? Therefore, the more hysterical the older generation becomes about so-called acid house parties, the more stimulated will be the younger generation to try to attend. Is it not time that a sense of proportion was adopted towards this transient phenomenon?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on a good point. The young people like the parties; the older people dislike the noise. Therefore, there must be a law to decide the matter. One must have licenses from local authorities and keep within various laws. If that is done and authorities are notified beforehand, everything is fine. The trouble is that people do not do so and in that respect they are breaking the law.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, having regard to the remarks addressed to him, is the Minister aware that

783
the public is concerned not only about noise but about what was found at recent parties—namely, offensive weapons, dogs kept by security guards to attack the police and matters which are of grave concern to the police since they involve criminals as well as young people trying to enjoy themselves, to which we have no objection?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Where such incidents happen they are contrary to the law and at present the police have sufficient powers to deal with them. The difficulty arises where numbers are large, and we are trying to investigate that matter. I remind the noble Lord and the House that by the end of August the Metropolitan Police had closed down approximately 130 acid house parties. Therefore, attempts were made to hold more parties than the number which actually took place.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that new regulations will not affect innocent barn dances that are held all over the country? We had a barn dance a week ago and someone telephoned the police to say that an acid house party was taking place. It was an innocent barn dance and as we knew the local policeman well everything was all right. It would be a pity if new regulations had such an effect.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to continue his barn dancing for as long as he wishes. I am sorry that his presence at that recent dance should have given the impression to others that it was an acid house party. It is perfectly all right for people to enjoy themselves provided they keep within the law. The point of having the law is to take account of noise and its offensiveness to other people and of safety and hygiene. Organisers break the law when they do not take precautions to inform people and it is that to which we must address our minds.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have already exceeded our normal time for Questions by seven minutes and that it is time we moved on to the next Question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for fishing me out of the water. However, I like to think that the length of time already spent has not been my fault.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the subject is of sufficient importance to be aired in this Chamber regardless of time. I do not believe that we have greatly exceeded our allotted time. I thank the Minister for his reply and I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. None of us wants to spoil the acitivities of young people; we wish to encourage them. We merely want them to be aware of the rest of the community living in the particular area. Will the Minister try to speed up his discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the local authorities?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the discussions are taking place as a matter of urgency because we realise the concern felt by many people about the holding of such parties.

Hinkley Point: Pre-construction Work
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether pre-construction work on the Hinkley Point site has been undertaken in advance of the public inquiry inspector's report.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am informed that the Central Electricity Generating Board has not undertaken any pre-construction work on the Hinkley Point site. However, site investigations involving bore-hole drilling have been carried out, with the necessary consents and with the knowledge of the local planning authority, in order to provide information for the detailed design of the proposed power station structures and the cooling water outlet.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it the case that construction work is presently in operation on the building of a new road around Coombwick Wharfe which will be used both for the building of the new Hinkley C Point reactor and for the decommissioning of the Magnox and AGR stations already in existence? If that is right, is it not degrading and debasing the value of public inquiries?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the CEGB has commissioned confirmatory site investigations consisting of the sinking of bore holes to enable tests to be carried out associated with the design and hydrographic survey in the area of the cooling water intake tunnel and outfall culvert. The work was commissioned in August and is now almost complete.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is grave concern about the CEGB and its activities in relation to nuclear methods? Is he also aware that in relation to Sizewell B the CEGB spent hundreds of millions of pounds on ordering equipment before the inquiry reported? Is not something similar occurring in relation to the site investigations? Can he assure the House and the country that again the CEGB is not jumping the gun by anticipating that it will receive permission and ordering goods worth hundreds of millions of pounds of public money?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that the board has placed contracts for some long lead items of equipment. The CEGB has placed orders for forgings for the reactor pressure vessel in advance of Section 2 consent in order to ensure that the equipment is available on site at the appropriate time during the construction programme. The CEGB's evidence to the Hinkley inquiry identified the need for the early ordering of equipment and on day 12 the inquiry was informed of the proposed orders.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. We on this side of the House are happy that he will be in the position of answering all the questions that we shall ask about electricity privatisation as they arise. As this is his first Question and we are all great friends, could the noble Viscount tell the House how far the Hinkley inquiry is going to be extended given the news of the Sizewell B cost overruns which has caused a two-month extension? Are the further cost overruns which are possible at Sizewell, the amount of which National Power spokesmen have said they have no idea of, going to lead to further extensions of the Hinkley Point inquiry or shall we see a terminal date which the noble Viscount can perhaps give us?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the inquiry was adjourned by the inspector on 27th September to enable objectors time to consider evidence presented to the inquiry by the CEGB. The inspector will reconvene the inquiry on 7th November to allow the objectors time to cross-examine the CEGB witness.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, we on this side welcome the noble Viscount's appearance at the Dispatch Box but warn him that it is very difficult terrain. However, from the bottom of our hearts we wish him the best of British luck.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words and I regret that I failed to thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I do that now.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I add a few more kind words and they are words of sympathy to the noble Viscount on being thrown in at the deep end on an issue which we have spent many years debating. However, I must remind him that he has not answered my first Question. Is it the case that a new road is being built around Coombwick Wharfe, because the people of Coombwick are very concerned about this matter? Is that road for the purpose of building the new reactor and for conveying the radioactive materials on the de-commissioning of the present reactors? If that is the case, would he state categorically on behalf of the Government that no decision will be taken, whether it is on Hinkley Point, Sizewell or Wylfa, until the inspector's report has been received? Otherwise the whole concept of having a public inquiry is debased.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the inspector has received evidence on all terms of the building of this power station. The Secretary of State will need to consider the inspector's report very carefully but will announce his decision as soon as he can.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Employment Bill will be
786
adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Licensing and Clubs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 will be taken.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Midland Metro Bill
Read a third time.
Clause 25[Provisions as to use of electrical energy]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) moved the following amendment:
Page 13, line 12, after ("and") insert ("return").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to make good an inadvertent omission of the word "return" before the word "circuits". This subsection gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations covering the overhead equipment and it should read:
"the return circuits of the Metro system."
The return circuit is through the running rails and is not part of the overhead equipment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Local Government and Housing Bill
Lord Reay: 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—

Clauses 1 to 14,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 15 to 34,

Schedule 2,

Clause 35,

Clauses 64 to 70,

Clauses 36 to 60,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 61 to 63,

Clauses 71 and 72,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 73 to 136,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 137 to 140,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 141 to 144,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 145 to 152,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 153 to 157,

Schedule 9,

787

Clauses 158 to 178,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 179 to 186,

Schedule 11 and 12,

Clauses 187.

—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Bill
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 12 [Trade union duties for which time off must be allowed by employer]:
The Chairman of Committees: If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 27.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert —
("(i) those matters listed in paragraph 13(a) to 13(f) of the ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities.").
The noble Lord said: We turn now to Clause 12. The object of the amendment is to limit the impact of the proposed clause. The Committee will remember that under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act trade unionists enjoy certain rights of time off with pay. Those rights are set out in Section 27(1) of the 1978 Act. Paragraph (a) states that the rights shall include' the right:
"to carry out those duties of his as such an official which are concerned with industrial relations between his employer and any associated employer and their employees; or
(b) to undergo training in aspects of industrial relations which is—(i) relevant to the carrying out of those duties; and (ii) approved by the Trades Union Congress or by the independent trade union of which he is an official".
Section 27(1) is further defined in subsection (2), which states:
"The amount of time off which an employee is to be permitted to take under this section and the purposes for which, the occasions on which and any conditions subject to which time off may be so taken are those" —
and this is the important part—
"that are reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to any relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service".
The ACAS code of practice on time off came into effect in April 1978 and of course, as with other codes of practice, it provides that failure to observe such provisions of the code would not in itself render a person liable to any proceedings but they can be taken into account in determining any question arising during an industrial tribunal hearing on the issue of time off for trade union activities.
The code fleshes out both Section 27(1)(a) and (b). Paragraph 8.12 of the code deals with general considerations. Paragraph 13, which is the part of the code with which this amendment is concerned, deals with the duties concerned with industrial relations; for example, large parts of Section 27(1)(a) of the 1978 Act. The remaining paragraphs 14 to 22 are largely concerned with Section 27(1)(b); that is, more union related matters such as training and so on.
As far as I am aware and as far as the Government have suggested in another place, that position was not contested by for example, the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation, the IPM or the BIM. I do not know, and I hope that if I am wrong the Government will tell me, of any determined attempt on the part of employers' associations or individual employers to argue that the provisions of the 1978 code of practice are too wide. I should say that they were not opposed by the then Conservative Opposition when they were introduced.
It is true that in the 1980s there were a number of cases such as Young and Carr Fasteners, Beal and Beecham Group,. and Scott and Allen where the courts appeared to be deciding that shop stewards could attend meetings of unions which were not directly concerned with their recognised representative functions.
For example, they were entitled under the code of practice to brief their members on the outcome of national negotiations. Even though they were not inolved in the national negotiations they were entitled to time off. They were entitled to time off to brief their members or to find out about certain pension schemes, even though they might not be involved in the negotiations on those schemes.
It would appear—I say it would appear because we have no direct evidence; we wonder where this comes from—that these cases are the basis for the Government's move to narrow the legal position. The Government's intentions surfaced in Burdens on Business. In 1988 Burdens on Business stated:
"greater clarity is needed in defining the range of industrial relations duties for which trade union officials have a statutory entitlement to paid time off. The present legislation can result in employers having to pay for lay union officials to take time off for activities unrelated to the terms on which the employer recognises their union, and thus causing real cost to employers".
Naturally enough, one would not expect Burdens on Business to provide any evidence of that, and naturally it does not.
It goes on to say:
"The Government intend to limit the range of duties for which time off with pay must be allowed to the scope of union recognition by the employer".
I stress those final few words:
"to the scope of union recognition by the employer".
This is important because I ask the Minister what the Government have done about this.
Burdens on Business goes on to say:
"No change is proposed in the provisions allowing trade union members time off without pay".
Therefore, the proposals in Clause 12 simply confine future time off to areas where the employer agrees in advance that there shall be time off. That is

789
basically what the clause means. The new paragraph (i) reads:
"any duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with negotiations with the employer that are related to or connected with any matters which fall within section 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974"—
and this is the important point—
"and in relation to which the trade union is recognised by the employer".
Recognition is important in order to obtain time off.
Paragraph (ii) states:
"any other duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with the performance, on behalf of employees of the employer, of any functions that are related to or connected with any matters falling within that provision and that the employer has agreed may be so performed".
Therefore, it is recognition that is the joint factor. You cannot unilaterally have yourself recognised. The employer has to agree to recognise you. It is a matter for the employer as to what areas are recognised. He decides. Outside any area of recognition in negotiations he has to agree that these matters can be dealt with by the union and that therefore time off can be given.
We say that that is to break the whole principle under which time off is granted under the 1978 Act. It is not intended that time off shall be entirely in an area decided by the employer, completely and absolutely at the definition of the employer. At the moment, of course, that is not the case because the code of practice does not suggest that that should be the case. Therefore, we suggest that part of the code of practice—and only part of it—should replace the new definition which the Government propose. We want to substitute for both the present words and the proposed new words the rights set out in a particular section of the ACAS code. We simply take paragraph 13, which is only one part of the ACAS code.
I regret that I have to read out quickly to the Committee the contents of the code. It lists six areas for which there shall be time off for representatives carrying out trade union duties:

"(a) collective bargaining within the appropriate level of manning.

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

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

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

(e) appearing on behalf of constituents before an outside body such as an industrial tribunal.

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

The essential point about that list is that the areas are not dependent on recognition. They are not finally dependent on the revocation by the employer of any right to time off, which is what the present clause proposes. Therefore, they are fit subjects for an appeal to an industrial tribunal, because a tribunal can say where the shop steward wants time off for collective bargaining, whether he needs it for informing constituents, whether he needs to hold interviews or give explanations to new employees.
790
A tribunal could, in principle at least, decide objectively whether or not the shop steward has a reasonable case.
The present position if the Bill is enacted unamended is that all the tribunal can do is ask the employer whether he recognises all those purposes; and since the employer is entitled to say whether or not he recognises, if he does not recognise there is no right to time off. What was intended to be a joint operation has become a unilateral operation.
In conclusion, I want to stress that we are not bringing in the whole of the present section. We are not trying to get back to the situation in which, for example, under Section 27(1)(b) there is the right to undergo training in all aspects of industrial relations approved by the Trades Union Congress or by independent trade unions of which the person may be an official. The amendment simply proposes to list the matters in the code of practice which are concerned with industrial relations in the place of work, but they are not to be unilaterally determined by the employer. They are to be jointly determined.
Finally, what has happened to the pledge which was made by the Government to leave the matter alone, as it were, in regard to the position where a trade union representative is not paid for time off? At present, payment for time off and time off is coterminous. Now the Government intend seriously to restrict the area in which there is to be a right either for time off or payment for time off. The Government intend to restrict the area for which a representative receives payment and they said in their original consultative document that they will leave alone the area covering time off without pay. However, no special provisions have been made.
In the light of those arguments I suggest that this is a modest amendment which should find support in the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: This amendment, as has been said, proposes that the ACAS code of practice as interpreted by various court cases which followed its publication provides a reasonable legislative framework for determining when a trade unionist should be entitled to time off. In my view it does.
Any change of principle as proposed in Clause 12 may, as I understand it, involve the renegotiation of an organisation's entire negotiating procedure agreement, not to mention the revision of the ACAS code of practice. However, surely any arrangement relating to time off should be part of and not separate from a general procedure agreement. The ACAS code stresses the wide variety of circumstances and problems facing employers and unions in this respect. In it there is a strong recommendation to the management of large and small enterprises, besides the trade unions, to take these matters into account in reaching flexible arrangements.
As the Institute of Personnel Management put it, where is the evidence that the great majority of these sensitive and complex arrangements are not working? There will always be a few borderline cases that are taken to a tribunal. But, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has said, changing the rules to rest on a management-based recognition agreement

791
which this clause proposes will surely serve only to open up new areas of potential conflict.
The stated purpose of the present statutory provisions on time off is to aid and improve the conduct of industrial relations. I do not see how the Government's new proposals can be justified within that purpose. I therefore suggest that the Committee, by accepting the amendment, should decide in effect to leave well alone.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I hope that the Government will take this amendment seriously. It seems that the proposal they have made is likely to create friction rather than to improve industrial relations. You may have a very active and able trade unionist employed in a firm or company that does not recognise a union. He may still remain a member of his trade union. As part of his responsibilities he may be called upon to represent other fellow workers in a particular area. As I understand it, to insert the offensive words that he can only act in relation to the trade union recognised by the employer, means that he is not then able to represent people who are engaged in another firm. I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, should laugh at that. This situation can arise in the case of smaller trades unions where officials have to represent people across a number of concerns. That has always been the case and such a procedure has been carried on, so far as I know, without any great friction.
The situation does not arise in the case of the Amalgamated Engineering Union or the Transport and General Workers' Union. The procedure I have outlined has fulfilled a need as regards the smaller unions. I urge that the matter be looked at again. Why not accept the amendment? I believe that most people who have studied these matters agree that ACAS has done a pretty good job. I am very glad to see that that opinion has received assent. It has a series of proposals as to the circumstances in which time off shall be given. They were enumerated by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. It is a reasonable group of suggestions in which a man might have time off not necessarily to represent someone in his own firm but in another. To deny that facility means weakening the smaller trade unions to a very marked degree and introducing a niggling nuisance and irritation into trades union and employer relations. If the Minister were to withdraw the words to which I think particular objection is taken and then accept the amendment which lays down a very modest series of circumstances in which this may happen, it will show that the Government are not, as so many people believe, afflicted in all their actions by anti-trade union prejudice. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider the matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As always, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has crystallised the issue and put it forward with his habitual clarity. However, his reasoning does not lead me to the same conclusion as it appears to lead him. As I understand it, what we are concerned with here is not just time off but time off paid for by the employer; namely, time
792
which the employer is paying for in the pursuit of his business. That is what we are involved with.
Frankly, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that an employer who does not recognise, rightly or wrongly, a particular union, should, because he is employing a man who is working for that union in respect of other companies, pay for time so spent. Surely that is the point. I am subject to correction if I am wrong. However, as I understand the clause, if work is being done on behalf of a union with the employer affecting industrial relations or negotiations in the company then it is thought proper that the time the official spends should be and could be time for which the employer is paying for his work.
I always differ from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, with the greatest of hesitation because he has enormous experience. If you employ someone who carries out trade union activities in respect of other companies, I do not see why the employer should pay for the time that the official spends on those duties. Therefore, I believe the clause is about right.
Lord McCarthy: I wish to draw the attention of the noble Lord to Section 27(1) of the 1978 Act which provides a duty on an employer to permit an employee who is an official of an independent union recognised by the employer. If there is no recognition in the first place, then no rights adduce at all. We are talking about what happens when there is some recognition.
Baroness Phillips: Will the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, accept that a director is paid very much better than a man on the line and that the former will frequently indulge in some activity relating to the British Institute of Management, the CBI or the Institute of Directors? He will be involved in quite a number of discussions and negotiations which will take place during time paid for by his employers. What is the difference?
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches have supported a considerable amount of the Government's trade union legislation, but surely enough is enough. If we are to move into a more prosperous time, as we all hope, then it is absolutely essential that we should have a responsible trades union movement working collaboratively with employers though doing their proper job of representing employee interests. Why must the Government niggle at the trades unions in this way? They have gone far enough. Can they not show a little generosity with the broader concern and purpose of developing better industrial relations in this country?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, speaks of some recognition. Recognition has been the essence of some of the most difficult and complex disputes that have troubled trades unions, employers and the courts. My contribution has nothing to do with anti-union sentiment or with niggling away at small points. Some recognition is a meaningless, confusing and—with respect to the noble Lord—hopelessly sterile phrase. Trades

793
unions are either recognised or they are not. If they are, then I go along with much that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said. If the trade unions are not recognised then the obverse holds true.
For the life of me I cannot see what is wrong, anti-union, niggling or unacceptable about the Government's proposal in logic, in practice or in law.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that this was a very minor amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said that what the Government were proposing in Clause 12 was a fundamental change. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that it was an attack on small unions. All noble Lords opposite have essentially missed the point of Clause 12. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. This is not an attack on the fundamental principle of paid time off for officials. The effect of all these amendments is, in one way or another, to negate the effect of Clause 12.
As the legislation currently stands an employer can be required to grant paid time off for officials to carry out duties for which the employer does not recognise the union. For example, an employer might negotiate with the trade union over pay and conditions but might have no intention of negotiating with the trade union over, say, recruitment policy. Yet a shop steward could still claim paid time off to attend meetings about recruitment policy. This cannot be right.
The clause seeks to correct this anomaly by limiting the right of officials of recognised trade unions to paid time off for trade union duties to duties concerned with negotiations with the employer about industrial relations matters for which their union is recognised or allowed by the employer to carry out functions on behalf of employees. Similarly, paid time off for trade union training must, under the proposed clause, be relevant to duties which meet the same conditions. This is clearly a necessary change.
I turn specifically to Amendment No. 26. To leave out lines 7 to 12 of page 11 and insert the passage proposed in the amendment would remove the new concept of limiting time off to duties concerned with matters in relation to which the union is recognised. It would replace it with the examples of purposes for which an official should be permitted to take time off detailed in the ACAS code. This list provided some examples of purposes for which time off should be granted under the present legislation but it was not drawn up in order to define the conditions for the right to paid time off.
The clause does not attempt to place a specific limit on what purposes fall within the ambit of the legislation. This will depend on the terms of the recognition agreement, whether the time off is for duties concerned with negotiations and, of course, the test of reasonableness. I have no doubt that in the great majority of cases employers and unions will continue to agree mutually satisfactory arrangements for time off. It would be impracticable and not
794
conducive to good industrial relations for an attempt to be made to provide in the legislation for all the occasions where time off need, or need not, be allowed. The clause ensures that employers do not have to provide paid time off for matters in relation to which the union is not recognised. Where there is a dispute about whether paid time off should be allowed on a particular occasion, the appropriate place for this to be resolved is at a tribunal. The tribunal would be able to consider issues such as whether it would be reasonable to grant paid time off.
The fact that employers comply with the current law and give time off in the circumstances it provides does not mean that the law itself is at the moment equitable. The Government have not sought in this clause to change the principle of existing legislation but just to make it more equitable. Where employers and trade unions have reached mutually satisfactory arrangements there is nothing in the clause which will force them to change. What the clause does is to enable those employers burdened by the current law to limit time off to a more reasonable level.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, specifically mentioned Section 28 of the 1978 Act. I have to point out to him that Section 28, which requires employers to provide time off without pay to union members for trade union activities, is not being amended. This is not a fundamental attack on anything that trade unions have been doing over the past 10 or 11 years. The amendment simply redresses the balance. For the reasons I have given I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, seemed to be saying that our amendment was trying to give rights to the trade union official without recognition. We are not trying to do that. We are not trying to give any rights where recognition does not exist. We are going along with the present Section 21 of the 1978 Act whereby the rights arise for an official of an independent trade union which is recognised. That is the answer to the noble Lord's point.
Secondly, he seemed to be saying that if our amendment were accepted almost anything would be possible and that almost any area of industrial relations would be one for which the trade union could ask for time off. The answer to that is that the proposal is considerably narrower than the present joint ACAS code. That code extends into all kinds of areas which we are not seeking to cover; for example, education, TUC courses, courses at the behest of individual trade unions and all those areas which are largely outside the workplace. We are insisting on paragraph 13 of the ACAS code. Paragraph 14 dealing with training of officials in aspects of industrial relations and paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are not being included in the new definition. We are saying that just one paragraph of the jointly agreed ACAS code should stand. That is not an extreme position.
I am not certain that I understood the drift of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of

795
Alloway. For part of the time he seemed to be saying that the term "recognition", or the area of recognition, was an extremely simple thing. At other moments he seemed to be saying that it had been much disputed. It was disputed at one time when there were laws giving trade unions certain rights of recognition. In fact the area of recognition and the boundaries of recognition make for a complicated issue. What it comes to in the end is that if an employer likes to say that this or that is not recognised, nobody can say that the employer is wrong. One cannot have recognition unless one has a prior act by an employer. Recognition means an act on the part of the employer. That is why we do not like the details of the boundaries of time off. We do not mind recognition being a qualification for any boundaries at all, but we do not like recognition to be the definition of what those boundaries should be.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Does the noble Lord recognise that what he is asking for would be granted if the tribunal was satisfied that it would be right to grant it. The tribunal would be there as an arbiter to decide whether or not a claim of unfairness was substantial. Does not the noble Lord recognise that?
Lord McCarthy: I do not recognise that, and I do not believe that the history of tribunals bears that out. It would be putting the tribunal in an impossible position if one expected it to say whether it was reasonable to recognise the union for this or that purpose. In the tribunal context, the tribunal is bound to take what the employer says are the boundaries of recognition. Without an investigation into what happens day by day in the plant, no tribunal could say whether de facto this or that was recognised.
If one has the term "recognition" in an Act of Parliament and one asks a tribunal to determine it, the tribunal is bound in practice and has, in defining managerial functions in other aspects of such work, to ask the employer what the employer does. If the employer says that it does not recognise for this purpose and that time off is not needed for this purpose, there is not much that a tribunal can do. All it can do is what we are suggesting the tribunal should be allowed to do —look at paragraph 13 of the ACAS code, go through sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) and see whether those are the purposes for which the individual shop steward wants time off. That a tribunal can arbitrate; it cannot arbitrate what a word such as "recognition" means.
So far as I understood the Minister he seemed to be suggesting that the only reason he cannot accept the amendment is that it would represent a burden on business. He actually used the phrase, "burdens on business". It is no answer to tell us that Section 28 gives certain rights without pay. Those rights are given to all employees. We are not talking about all employees. We are talking about trade union officials.
I took the consultative document to suggest that, if the Government were to legislate in that area, it would leave the rights of trade union officials—of
796
shop stewards with recognised members —in exactly the same position as they were before and would only narrow the area concerning pay. But the Government have not done that and have not provided any sufficient arguments. We therefore feel inclined to press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question before we divide upon the amendment. Let us suppose that an employer has recognised union A. There is an internecine dispute between union A and union B and the employer is not, or may not be, disposed to recognise both unions. Must the employer give time off to both unions?
Lord McCarthy: I am pleased that the noble Lord asks me that question, although I do not understand why he has not got the point. Section 27(1)(a) of the 1978 Act states that there shall be a duty on the employer to permit an employee who is an official of an independent trade union recognised by the employer to take time off. If the employer recognises trade union B but does not recognise trade union A, he has no need whatever to give any rights to the unrecognised union.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Then what is the object of the amendment?
Lord McCarthy: The object of the amendment is to give the tribunals and shop stewards something less subjectively determined by the employer than the single word "recognition". That is the object of the amendment.
3.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 115.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Foot, L.

Attlee, E.

Gallacher, L.

Aylestone, L.

Galpern, L.

Banks, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Birk, B.

Glenamara, L.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Blease, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Grey, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hampton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hooson, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hughes, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carter, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jay, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ennals, L.

Listowel, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ezra, L.

Falkland, V.

Lockwood, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Longford, E.

797

Lovell-Davis, L.

Seear, B.

McCarthy, L.

Serota, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Soper, L.

Mais, L.

Stallard, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stedman, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Oram, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Parry, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Phillips, B.

Underhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Walston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Whaddon, L.

Rochester, L.

White, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Scanlon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Killearn, L.

Allerton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Alport, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Annaly, L.

Layton, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Luke, L.

Barber, L.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Manchester, D.

Belstead, L.

Manton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Margadale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Marley, L.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L.

Middleton, L.

Boardman, L.

Monson, L.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brookes, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caccia, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Norrie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cawley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pender, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Porritt, L.

Craigavon, V.

Radnor, E.

Craigton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Effingham, E.

Rugby, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gainford, L.

Shannon, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sharples, B.

Gridley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Haig, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathspey, L.

Harvington, L.

Terrington, L.

Havers, L.

Teviot, L.

Headfort, M.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hood, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("and in relation to which the trade union is recognised by the employer").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28, which deals with a similar matter. The purpose of the amendment is to look further into the depths of the change to the wording of Section 27(1)(a) of the 1974 Act that the Bill makes. The amendment is not as ambitious as the previous one. Its purpose may be described as an attempt to retain some core of objective meaning in Section 27.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy had to struggle hard to prevent the Committee getting into a fine old muddle about the previous amendment because—it is a problem that affects us all—the Government are suggesting an amendment to an existing section, and we are suggesting an amendment to that amendment. Part of the difficulty, I apprehend, with the previous discussion may have been that the Committee did not have the original section in front of it. That section, as I believe we finally established, relates to two things: first, the condition precedent; secondly, a right.
The condition precedent is wholly in the hands, and has been since 1980, of the employer. It is recognition of the union. Since then, there has been no legal duty to recognise the union. Once the condition is fulfilled and the union is recognised, there appears in Section 27 a right; namely, a right of the union representative who is also an employee not to break his contract of employment, and to be paid for a certain amount of time off in connection with industrial relations between the union, his employer and associated employers.
I break off there to say that we wish to know whether the omission of the words "and associated employers" in the Government's new text for Section 27(1)(a) is accidental, purposive or meant to change the section in that respect. I put that to the Minister now because it is a matter to which we may wish to return on Report.
"Associated employers" is within the definition of recognition within Section 32 of the 1974 Act. The section will be odd indeed if it is left in the form that it now is. It would be ridiculous to change the notion that any time off could deal with industrial relations matters with the employer's associated employers in a small group of companies, for example. We wonder whether the Government really have that in their minds since they have taken out those words in one place and left them in in another.
That apart, the amendments attempt to retain, not as much as the previous amendment, but some core of objective meaning in the right. Let me explain why I put it that way: if the union is recognised, in all modern industrialised labour law systems of which I am aware, some kind of union representative will have a right to conduct trade union activity and industrial relations activity with a right to paid time off from the place of work. Most systems have a far more extensive right than we do.
All the amendment asks for—it may be that the next amendment will be needed to make sense of it—is that the definition should cover that basic area of employment matters which is within Section 29 of the 1974 Act. That of course is the section which lists the permissible subjects for a trade dispute; but there is no dispute, I apprehend, with the Government on this point since they use the section to point to the list of matters which are everywhere, by employers and unions alike, regarded as a basic employment area of industrial relations.
Once the condition is satisfied—it is wholly in the employers' hands—then the right should at least apply to the core basis and, of course, any other matters upon which the parties reach agreement. I pause to say that sensible and good employers, of whom there are many, reach agreement on matters such as time off, and of course that is much the best way to deal with the matter. However, for those employers who do not, but who recognise unions and rely upon, as it were, their basic legal obligations, we say that there should be a basic legal obligation.
The amendment which the Government wish to make to the section would not leave any right or obligation. Let us take the case where the condition is satisfied: the employer says, "I recognise the union", and the shop steward says, "I want paid time off. I have not had any this year". It must be a reasonable time. There has not been much difficulty about that. In fact, I pause again to say that the complaints of some of my colleagues who are practitioners in that area of employment law is that there are so few cases on this matter before the industrial tribunals that there is not much honey or luxury to be obtained by fees in that area. There are not many cases.
If the Government's amendment is accepted, the employer may say, "Oh, I have decided that I do not recognise you on that matter". Pensions have been much discussed. The recognition would normally at least allow for some negotiations or talk about pensions. The employer may suddenly say, "No I am sorry. I do not recognise you. I have decided not to. I have decided to withdraw." That has happened. Trade unions know that the willingness of an employer to continue to talk about pensions is a delicate matter.
If that is the situation, and the employer is entitled to act as I have described, the union representative has no right; because if I have a right to time off but the employer has the right to stop me taking time off, the right is nullified. It is a liberty of action which is conditional upon the employer's agreement. The Government's text means that even when the condition precedent is satisfied there is no right.
There is no right because the second half of the section is also completely in the employer's hands. He can say, "No, I do not recognise you for that matter. I have withdrawn recognition on that matter. I do not agree. You cannot go." "You cannot go" means also that—this is where the trouble will break out, and good employers will not thank the Government for this—he cannot go on the training course which is linked, via paragraph (b) and the definition of duties in paragraph (b), to the content of paragraph (a). One again feels like making
800
photocopies of the whole section because it would save so much time. Under Section 27(1)(b) the training courses have to be relevant to the carrying out of the duties in paragraph (a). Therefore, if the paragraph (a) duties are defined as wholly in the employer's hands, minute to minute, then training courses are also equally limited. That would be a great pity.
The TUC and trade unions will take that line. I believe good employers will take that line. I do not believe that many people will thank the Government for the disputes that will break out when management gets into a macho frame of mind and causes disputes. There will be more disputes on this issue if the Government's text is accepted.
As for clarity, perhaps I may say just two more things. First, there is, as I have suggested, little difficulty here with legal interpretation. The Court of Appeal this year heard the case of Adlington v. British Bakeries (Northern) Limited. In that case, the Court of Appeal again gave its approval to the test which has become, in the case of the 1980s, the central test as to whether or not there should be time off. I shall read part of one sentence which goes to the nub of the issue. The Court of Appeal stated:
"The test is whether the time off is required to enable the official"—
This is under the present law, of course—
"to carry out his duties in relation to a matter which arises in relations between the employees and management".
There will always be the odd case or two, but that test has now settled in and in previous cases such as the Beal v. Beecham Food case it has not caused a great deal of difficulty.
As for the burden on business, the CBI, it is true, has said that it wants to confine the right, although I am not clear that the CBI has claimed that it wishes to destroy the right as the Bill would do. Even the CBI's documents—I looked at what I could find—show that in 1986 it thought that the section was potentially damaging as a burden to business. They did not actually say it had damaged any particular business. I should like to know of cases where it has caused this enormous burden. It may cause management some inconvenience. However, good management will say that good industrial relations cause a bit of inconvenience but in the end it is worth it.
The Government's text would make massive inroads, because of its character, into those situations where union representatives and shop stewards come from companies which are either members of a wide group or of an area. Those situations are perhaps covered by the bargaining with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. It is quite clear that under this text the shop stewards would encounter greater difficulty if different employers in different parts of the industry put different limitations upon their recognition in order to prevent meetings which would come within this section.
There is no anomaly in the present law. Our contention is that there would be an anomaly if the Bill were passed as it is. The anomaly is that Section 27 would become a false prospectus. It would say

801
that if the precedent conditions were satisfied then employees would have a right. But in truth it would not be a right at all. There would be no right because the employer could always determine what the result should be.
Therefore these amendments are nothing more than an effort to say to the Government, "Will you not leave a small core of objective meaning, leaving your own words in the section, but omitting the words that give the employer the ability to determine, day to day, the content of the right according to whether the trade union is recognised?" I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The first of these two amendments proposes to leave out the phrase,
"and in relation to which the union is recognised by the employer",
from line 11 of page 11. This would remove the concept of recognition so that the test would be simply whether the duty was concerned with negotiations related to or connected with a matter within Section 29(1) of the 1974 Act. The likely effect is that, if the subject of the meeting for which paid time off is claimed falls within the list of industrial relations matters in Section 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and other provisions of the current legislation are satisfied, the employer would be required to provide paid time off. This is unacceptable. The Government's intention in Clause 12 is to place a more reasonable limit on the circumstances under which an employer is required to grant paid time off for trade union duties than that which currently obtains. The amendment would negate this.
Amendment No. 28 proposes to leave out "and" in line 17 of page 11 and to replace it by "or". The effect of this amendment would be to require employers to provide paid time off for a trade union official of a recognised trade union to perform functions on behalf of employees which had not been agreed by the employer. This would of course negate the purpose of this part of the clause which is an integral part of the whole clause. The purpose of this part of the clause is the same as that which I have already described for the whole clause—that is, to give employers more control over the matters for which they are obliged to provide paid time off.
The noble Lord mentioned particularly the case law concerning the Adlington v. British Bakeries (Northern) Ltd. case. I want to make it clear that that case law, which emerged during the Committee stage in another place, led us to introduce amendments at Report stage in another place.
The Government's intention over the clause have not altered during the passage of the Bill. The effect of the amendments was simply to preserve a point of law which was brought into focus by the case of Adlington v. British Bakeries. While not reversing the Beal decision, the Court of Appeal in this case confirmed that there was in Section 27 of the 1978 Act a concept of nearness to negotiations. This meant that the tribunals were required to decide whether the paid time off which the union wanted was
802
sufficiently relevant to negotiations with the employer to be covered by the time off provisions. This concept could have been lost with the original wording in Clause 12, so it was amended accordingly.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting, but I wish to be clear, because I may have misunderstood. The Minister says that the present wording was introduced because of the Adlington decision. Did I misunderstand that?
Lord Strathclyde: The original concept could have been lost with the original wording of Clause 12. It was because of that that the orginal clause was amended by the amendments which were brought in at the Report stage in the House of Commons.
The noble Lord mentioned training. I wish to point out that there will remain a requirement on employers to provide paid time off to trade union officials for relevant training. This is because the Government accept that relevant training for trade union officials can be an aid to the conduct of good industrial relations. However, the fact remains, as it has done throughout the debate this afternoon, that if a course is not relevant to industrial relations in the workplace, there is no good reason why an employer should be required to provide time off for the official to attend.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will allow us to continue and will withdraw his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is not as complicated as it would appear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I agree of course that there is no right to time off unless the union is recognised. The noble Lord says, "Oh, but it is open to an employer"—he did not use those words but that was the meaning—"to pretend that the union is not recognised when in fact it is". But, with respect, is it? There are ways in which a pretence of that nature could be and can now be dealt with.
This small core of objective meaning, as I understand it, is the ethos or the spirit behind the amendment which motivates the noble Lord's thinking. It is a small core of objective meaning which is directed to a pretence which is assumed and could otherwise be dealt with. With respect, I do not see the necessity for the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister confirmed some of the worst fears of those who are very concerned about this change. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that I do not agree that there should be no right to time off. There should be a right to time off. As a matter of fact, it is widely held these days that employers ought to recognise trade unions and bargain with them. That view is not held, I know, by the Government because they do not believe in collective industrial relations. They believe in decollectivised industrial relations. It has been said many times by Ministers that they believe in individualised industrial relations. They do not believe in trade unions taking part in collective

803
bargaining on wages. If they did, they would defend the canons of Professor Hayek. The Prime Minister would not like that. Of course that is their line.
If we examine the legislation since 1982 at any rate—the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, is a more complex matter—it is clear that it has as a major theme the decollectivisation of British industrial relations. That means putting the trade unions in a corner and hearing as little from them as possible. It means taking them off tripartite bodies, getting them out, with decentralised wage bargaining so that there is no central trade union strategy. That is a perfectly logical, coherent strategy. We just happen to think that it is evil and does a great deal of harm to ordinary working people and their interests.
There is a difference of principle between us. It is quite natural for the Government to move such a clause. We have smoked it out and seen what it is. There is no right to time off after this clause. When there is no such right under Section 27(1)(a), let us be quite clear about it, there is no right to relevant training, which is wider than what is permitted by the employer after the Bill is passed, under paragraph (a). So the employer controls time off, recognition and training. I can see from the look on the Minister's face that he is happy. This he calls a more reasonable limit on Section 27 which concerns time off. There is scarcely another system in the world that would view the matter that way and very soon we shall put it right when the roles between us are reversed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 11, leave out line 20 and insert ("any such duties or functions as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or upon which the trade union or the employer is seeking consultation and/or representation.").
The noble Baroness said: We have already had a substantial amount of discussion on this clause, but I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee an aspect which has not been completely covered. The objective of Amendment No. 29 is to try to establish that time off will be available for other matters apart from direct collective bargaining and negotiations.
As I think has already been indicated by my two noble friends, good industrial relations consist of more than simply direct collective bargaining, although of course that is very important. In particular there is training, to which my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has just paid some attention. On the question of training there really is a case for providing a right to paid time off for a range of responsibilities in connection with industrial relations which should not be dependent simply on recognition for full collective bargaining. Union officials elected by the workforce should be equipped to respond to changes in the working environment. The Government repeatedly emphasise the importance of training yet it would appear in this clause that they do not want to provide facilities for it to be properly undertaken.
There is on record at least one case where the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that a shop steward who took time off to attend a training course on pension schemes should be paid for the time taken. That decision was reached even though at that time the company pension scheme was not a matter for negotiation. However, it was ruled by the Employment Appeals Tribunal that it was a matter about which employees might quite rightly seek advice from their shop steward. Therefore in that particular case, which went to appeal as I have just indicated, a decision was taken that the shop steward should have paid time off for that function.
Unless an amendment along the lines indicated in Amendment No. 29 is adopted by this Chamber, a decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal on these lines would no longer be possible, as I understand it. That would be quite unnecessary and quite restrictive. I share the views expressed by both my noble friends. I support in particular what was said by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn—that unless this clause is amended it demonstrates completely our view that the Government are intent upon removing rights from trade unions, in particular from active trade unionists, and are intent upon preventing them from carrying out effectively a good industrial relations system and scheme at the workplace level. It is of course important to have such a scheme at the workplace level. That is what these rights are all about, and that is why they are important to us. We have put down a series of amendments to try to protect the rights to some degree. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think, with respect, that the noble Baroness has somewhat exaggerated the effect of the clause. I am sure she is quite wrong to read into it such governmental intentions as she apparently does. As I understand it, we are simply concerned here with what purposes should permit an employee to demand paid time off from his employer. As I understand it, there is nothing to prevent an employee performing the interesting training or other functions to which the noble Baroness referred in his own time. All that is at issue here is whether his employer should be bound to pay him for that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Does not the noble Lord agree that if an individual has to lose money in order to pursue these activities, which can lead eventually to the employer's benefit, he is less likely to want to undertake them?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the activities appear likely to lead to an employer's benefit, the latter might well be prepared to pay for the time off voluntarily. But is an employer to investigate in advance whether the studies are likely to be to his benefit? Has the noble Baroness also considered that if time off is to be taken for union purposes that have nothing to do with an employer it is the union which should pay? Unions have their own funds and if a man is to stop work in order to carry out work which the union wishes him to do, on ordinary principles I should have thought it was for the union to pay the man

805
sufficient to support him. What we are really concerned with here are not the substantial issues which the noble Baroness suggested but the simple fundamental rudimentary one of who pays. I think the Government are right in saying that the employer should not have to pay for union work, save where it has a direct relationship with a union which he recognises and deals with.
Lord Scanlon: I have listened with interest throughout the afternoon and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for at last coming clear on the issue. All afternoon I have wondered whether the issue concerns time off or who pays for that time off. We are now told that the issue concerns who pays. Have the Members of the Committee opposite considered for one moment that we are talking not only about trade unionists in manual occupations but also about staff workers on salaries? If time off is given one cannot deny pay to an individual without breaching his contract of employment if he is on a salary. The alternative therefore is to widen still further the differentials that exist between staff and non-staff. Surely that point must be taken on board by my noble friend.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendment No. 29 proposes to leave out line 20 of page 11 and to insert the proposed passage. This would require an employer to provide time off for trade union officials to receive training in relation to matters for which the union would like to be recognised, or in respect of functions which they would like the employer to agree they should perform on behalf of his employees even though in fact there is no such agreement. It would be quite inappropriate for an employer to be required to give time off for such training. Clause 12, most appropriately, gives a right to reasonable paid time off for training in aspects of industrial relations relevant to duties which are either concerned with negotiations with the employer about industrial relations matters or are concerned with the performance of functions relating to industrial relations matters which the employer has agreed the union may perform on behalf of his employees.
Members of the Committee opposite believe that the clause will have an adverse affect on the time off trade union officials are entitled to in order to undergo relevant training. As I have said, there will remain a requirement on employers to provide paid time off to trade union officials for relevant training. This is because the Government naturally accept that relevant training for trade union officials can be an aid to the conduct of good and sound industrial relations. However, the fact remains that if a course is not relevant to those duties of an official which are defined in Clause 12, there is no good reason why an employer should be required to provide paid time off for his official to attend it.
Just before he withdrew a previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, spoke to the effect that Clause 12 was an outrageous attack on trade unionism and followed a line that the Government had started in 1982. Other Members of the Committee opposite made similar comments.
806
I think that line of argument stretches credulity. It is quite obvious that the clause continues to provide trade union officials with the right to paid time off to carry out their duties and to have relevant training. All the clause does is to make a modest and sensible adjustment which merely carries a condition, already embodied in existing legislation, through to its logical conclusion.
As I said earlier this afternoon, it is clear that all of the amendments have the same purpose, namely to frustrate the very necessary aim of Clause 12, which is to link the right to paid time off for trade union duties and training to the extent of recognition. That would ensure that an employer is not placed in the position of having to grant paid time off to trade union officials relating to matters for which the union is not recognised.
In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I find that response extremely disappointing. The TUC's view is that the clause as it stands would place severe limits on the rights to paid time off both for trade union duties and for training. The TUC points out that the clause would do so by removing the qualifying term "industrial relations" from the present legislation and replacing it with employer agreement on the extent to which the union is recognised. That is the core of our argument.
As the clause stands, the employer could give general recognition but could say "We do not recognise the union as far as pensions are concerned. Therefore, if you want to attend a seminar or training course on pensions the union can pay for you to do so but we are not going to give you paid time off". That is not a satisfactory situation.
As I understand it, particularly in the light of the EAT decision which I quoted earlier, that is not a situation that would apply under the present legislation. The government proposal would have the effect of weakening the existing provisions on paid time off for trade union duties. I believe that we are eminently justified in being critical of the Government for introducing the measures since there is no evidence that the existing provisions have placed a tremendous burden on employers. Nor are there many industrial tribunal cases on record. Plainly employers have not felt that it was an enormous burden.
This is just another example of the Government's anti-union prejudice. I say that quite categorically. However, I do not intend to press the amendment at this time. I shall take it away and think about it again before Report stage. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment I believe that it would be fair for my noble friend Lord Scanlon to have a reply to the point that he raised. It was similar to a point which I made. The Government make great play about not attacking the trade unions. The Prime Minister loves the trade unions—so long as they are

807
in Poland. However, they attack trade unions all the time, in every piece of legislation.
If they are not attacking the unions, why will they not permit people who are "on the line", who are perhaps manual workers within the union, to attend to their duties during paid time when they will allow a director to carry out duties on behalf of his professional association, which is his trade union?
Lord Strathclyde: The point is that that is an agreement between the employer and the employee. Likewise, in the case of a director, it is up to the director to decide in conjunction with his managing director whether he should have paid time off, time off without pay or whatever he wants. We are not taking that away from current legislation. There is still a right to paid time off. If the noble Baroness suggests that we should do away with that right altogether and simply allow individuals to negotiate whether they should have paid time off, fair enough. But that is not what we suggest here. Therefore, there is no natural analogy between a director and another employee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: The Committee will not be surprised that we cannot leave the position as it stands. We have to oppose the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
We have tried on three different occasions, in three different ways, to amend the clause. It is clear that we have not so far managed to carry the Committee with us on the distinction, so I must explain our position once again, briefly.
In the case of the first amendment we wanted to leave the situation in which, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn termed it, the precedent conditions depend upon a prior act of recognition alone. We want to do that with all our amendments. We have focused not on the precedent conditions or the qualifications for trade union time off but on the area of time off.
In the first instance, we asked that instead of the present definition of the scope or the Government's proposal that the precedent conditions should be exactly the same as the definition of the area, both sides of the equation should depend upon recognition alone. We said that there should be a modest list of subjects which should be very largely related to collective bargaining in the firm. They have the legitimacy that they can be found in one paragraph of the jointly agreed ACAS code.
Had the Government said that that was not a very good form of words, as one speaker who participated in the debate said, because the words were not drawn up for that purpose, that would have been perfectly correct. Those words were not drawn up for inclusion in the statute. We chose them because they have a certain legitimacy and because they derive from a collective agreement between the two sides of the ACAS council. They have stood the test of time. There has been no complaint about them that we can see or that the Government can cite, although
808
they are much narrower than the present conditions. But the Government said no.
The Government said that that would be the same as the existing agreement. I do not believe that the Minister gave an indication that he understood how far we had narrowed the scope. He also said that, anyway, the employers must be allowed to decide the boundaries of the scope of time off—not simply the preconditions but the defined area.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn tried to take out the reference to recognition as defining area. He said, why not accept what the Government had put in the rest of the clause, the definition of a trade dispute? That would be a matter that the tribunals could determine. However, the Government said that they could not accept that, for very similar reasons. They said that the new definition would impose certain conditions on employers. The Minister found a new argument: he said that the definition that the Government proposed would allow all kinds of matters that might not be allowed by the amendment that my noble friend moved. For example, he said that training might be included. He did not and could not deny that in the government provisions it would be the employer who would determine whether training was in or out. It would be the employer who decided whether anything was in or out. That is what we object to. That is the whole thrust of our amendments. However, the Government affected not to be able to see that.
Finally, and most recently, my noble friend Lady Turner suggested once again leaving qualifications aside and moving only into the definition of boundaries and allowing those areas where a union did not have recognition but in which it sought consultation and representation. In practice that would be a modest amendment. If an employer said, "I do not recognise this area and therefore you cannot have time off", a tribunal could ask the trade union whether it was seeking recognition or consultation in that area. If the union said that it was there would be a case for the tribunal to decide. However, for very similar reasons the Government would not have that.
The only new evidence in support of the clause which the Government have trotted out today is contained in Section 28.
The Minister says that there is some justification for what the Government said at Second Reading; namely, that they are not taking away time off without pay and that in Section 28 there are certain rights of time off without pay. But neither at Second Reading nor in the consultative document did they say that they were leaving the employees' rights alone—and that is the relevance of Section 28; it is about the employees' rights and not the shop stewards' rights. They suggested that they were leaving the shop stewards' rights alone—that is my interpretation of their words at least—and that all they were touching was the pay issue; namely, the question of rights in respect of paid time off.
We see from the Bill, however, that they are restricting both paid time off and time off without pay. All that they are leaving alone is the individual employee's rights. It is true that that is specified in

809
another part of the code of practice; namely, in section 21 of that code. However, if one examines those rights it appears absolutely clear that they are not the kinds of rights which are of much use to shop stewards. They very largely concern attending meetings, participating in ballots, taking part in union elections at the place of work and going to meetings in association with other employees. They are directly related to the employees. They do not deal with representation or consultation. They do not deal with all the issues which we are trying to persuade the Government to consider and which I believe a reasonable interpretation of their statements would suggest would be left alone so long as they were not covered by paid time off.
In those circumstances we feel we must press this matter to a Division.
Lord Strathclyde: It seems almost extraordinary that, having discussed four separate amendments over the past hour and a half, Members opposite still want to continue this discussion and oppose the Question that the clause stand part. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has dealt with the unions for a great deal of time and naturally I understand that he feels very strongly about this matter. However, I believe that he is stretching the point and perhaps I may go through the clause yet again to explain exactly what we are doing.
This clause represents an aspect of our policy of deregulation that we have been pursuing for some years. Specifically it is part of our policy of deregulation in the field of industrial relations, especially employment protection and individual rights legislation. The Government's intention in Clause 12 is to relieve employers from requirements to grant paid time off for trade union officials to deal with matters in relation to which the union is not recognised by an employer. On this side of the Committee we have justified that remark time and again.
As I said, Clause 12 is just a small element of the deregulation and not a major step. We have always made clear that we have no intention of dismantling the whole framework of employment protection. That policy can be seen at work in this proposed clause. The basic principle of paid time off for trade union officials remains in place but we need always to ask ourselves why it is necessary to depart from the tenet that terms and conditions of employment are matters to be determined by the employer and the employees concerned in the light of their own individual circumstances.
Having asked ourselves that question in the case of the requirement for paid time off in Section 27 of the 1987 Act, we considered that while that statutory right was appropriate some minor change was necessary. We embodied that change in Clause 12.
This is a modest, useful and sensible clause. I commend it to the Committee.
4.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 81.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Layton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Long, V.

Allerton, L.

Luke, L.

Alport, L.

Lyell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Arran, E.

Manton, L.

Balfour, E.

Margadale, L.

Barber, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beloff, L.

Mersey, V.

Belstead, L.

Middleton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Monson, L.

Birdwood, L.

Moran, L.

Blatch, B.

Mottistone, L.

Boardman, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Borthwick, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Munster, E.

Brookes, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Norrie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northbourne, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cawley, L.

Orkney, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Pennock, L.

Cox, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craigavon, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Porritt, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gridley, L.

Sharples, B.

Haig, E.

Skelmersdalc, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathspey, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Swansea, L.

Havers, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hood, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimball, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wise, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Amherst, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Attlee, E.

Aylestone, L.

Carter, L.

Birk, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

Blease, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bottomley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ennals, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

811

Falkland, V.

Mayhew, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Foot, L.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Northfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Parry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hughes, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seear, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stallard, L.

Jay, L.

Stedman, B.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L

Longford, E.

Walston, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McCarthy, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mais, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 12 agreed to accordingly.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Assistance for proceedings by employers.
There shall be added to section 20(7) of the Employment Act 1988—
"(f) a complaint to a tribunal under sections 24 and 27 of the 1978 Act, or a complaint under section 67 of that Act where the ground, or principal ground, relied upon is a ground falling within section 58." ").
The noble Lord said: We thought it proper to put down this amendment to a Bill relating to employment. It is what I called yesterday a fairness amendment. It is a matter on which we believe that there is quite widespread feeling that the Government have got it wrong and have gone over the top.
I repeat what I said yesterday. The amendments in this category do not seek to set out the law as we would wish it but to centre on a matter of practical importance. It concerns a new institution, the need for which we say has never been made out; namely, the office of Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. The name is a bit of a mouthful. It is an office which in conferences on trade union law is being referred to as the CROTUM. The CROTUM was established in the Act of 1988 with the sole task of assisting members of trade unions to sue their unions in the High Court. That is the function of the office. A member can have legal advice and representation paid for.
The first report of this office has just been published. It covers only four months. I believe that the Government have made£2 million available for the budget of the office over the year. The Minister will correct me if that is wrong. However, if it is right, it is a sizeable percentage of the nearly£4
812
million available for the entire work of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and of the even larger sum that is available to the Commission for Racial Equality. These bodies disclose their budgets in their reports. It appears that this budget is to be put to the Commons in a separate paper.
It is also interesting to observe that the CROTUM may be hard pressed to spend all this money since the report discloses that in the first four months of business there have been only 10 applications for help, six of which were outside the terms of reference, and only two of which are being supported in proceedings at the outset. At this rate the clients of the commission will plainly be able to afford the luxury of funds to engage the most fashionable Queen's Counsel to represent them in court; or, if the Master of the Rolls does not use his veto, perhaps soon the most expensive solicitor.
Although we doubt the need for any office of this kind, we accept its existence. We still believe it to be a slur upon trade unions. Indeed, the commissioner has commented in her first report:
"If union members do not feel the need to come to me for assistance it may simply indicate that unions are respecting their members' rights".
That was from a report in the Employment Gazette.
The point of the amendment is this. The office exists. If all this money is to be spent on the defence of workers' rights in their capacity as trade unionists, should it not be spent a little more fairly? Our amendment is entirely concerned with trade union rights: the right to be a member of a union; the right to engage at work in the activities of an independent trade union; and the right to time off work for a representative of a trade union. Because of the form of the legislation that we are citing, it also covers the rights of non-unionists which are defended in the same sections of the 1978 Act. The matters concerned are discipline and dismissal on union-related grounds.
The addition that the amendment makes to the existing law is essentially this. While the 1988 Act afforded financial assistance through the CROTUM to union members to protect their rights against their own union, this amendment would give them parallel assistance by the same machinery to protect their trade union rights against dismissal or unlawful discipline exercised by their employer. We say that it is an unfair use of public money to protect trade union members in the one direction against alleged abuses by unions, and not to allow for protection in the other direction—against the alleged abuses of the employee members by the employers.
Indeed, the need in the second dimension is demonstrably greater. Whereas, in the first four months of the office, applications to the CROTUM numbered 10—even the total inquiries on the telephone numbered only 37—it appears that every four months in 1987–88 some 300 complaints related to union membership, dismissal or unlawful discipline were made to industrial tribunals. Such applicants have to bear the costs of the case. They have no legal aid, under the normal legal aid system, in the industrial tribunals in cases against the employer. Legal aid, together with assistance from

813
the CROTUM, is available in the parallel situation of High Court cases brought against unions by members, but the applicant in the tribunal defending his trade union activity rights against the employer has no help except from his union.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls; Hear, hear.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord says "hear hear", but perhaps he would also note that the sections cover non-unionists. This is not changing the dimensions of the legislation. He may throw the union members to the wolves and say, "Their unions can always support them". This does happen, but not always. However, he is then left with the non-unionists suffering what in our view is an injustice.
Out of 25,000 complaints of unfair dismissal in 1987–88—some of which certainly contained elements of trade union rights infringement other than those I have cited—only 2,400 were successful. Of the successful applicants, 54 per cent. appear to have been unrepresented. The precise details are very hard to ascertain on published statistics, but I believe that I have put a fair picture to the Committee. From that picture, how can one possibly justify the spending of the public money of this office in defence of trade union rights, in the broadest sense, against a union (where the complaint is against a union) but not making those funds available in cases where there is no legal aid and where a member or non-member who alleges a complaint may or may not receive assistance from a union or some other source?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps I may ask a question. I am rather confused. Surely a member pays his trade union contribution in order to get help from his trade union in circumstances such as that. If the trade union does not undertake that obligation, having received the prescription, that means that it does not think that there is a case to fight. Is that not the real situation?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: There are three types of situation and the noble Lord has rightly cited one of them. The one he cites may not be particularly relevant to my case; namely, a trade union member who complains about a breach of Section 23 or Section 27, if he is an official, and whose union takes up his case. I agree that that may well be so.
I say that there are two other types of case and they will certainly come to more than 10 examples in four months. The two other types of case are those who allege infringement by the employer of one or other of the rights in this congeries of sections, either in respect of trade union activity or in respect of their status as a non-unionist. No aid is given to them. Trade unions, indeed other bodies, sometimes decide not to support complaints. Where no legal aid is available not then to give any public money seems to me unfair when it is being given to the parallel case on the other side when legal aid is
814
available in the High Court. That is all it is. It would not perhaps cause a great deal of extra expenditure. As I said it is a limited amendment.
Our fairness amendments are limited and the noble Lord must not suspect them of having any ulterior purpose. They are straightforward. The provision would not apply to most trade union members, but it would apply to the trade union member who does not have the support of his union. When he does not get that support he is left on his own. He does not have legal aid and he does not have the CROTUM. Why not? It applies to the non-unionists who complain under these sections and they do not have the CROTUM against the employer. Why not? When a member complains against the union he does, even if he is very rich. Some unions have very rich members—not the Association of University Teachers, I hasten to add—but he may have great assets somewhere else or help from a friend—from the noble Lord, in some cases perhaps, not committing champerty, I am sure.
There is an injustice here and it is the kind of thing that the Government fall into. We think they fall into it quite honestly but with ideological blinkers. They are always giving aid against unions to people and we are saying that here is a case which concerns just a few people. We care about the individual and the test for the Government is whether they care about these few individuals who should be helped by the CROTUM. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: In moving this new clause the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has returned to a matter which was considered by this House during the passage of what became the Employment Act 1988 when a rather similar amendment was moved at that Bill's Report stage.
The Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members was established under the 1988 Act so that union members need not be at a material disadvantage in taking certain proceedings against their union, its officials or trustees. The relevant proceedings are set out in Section 20(7) of the 1988 Act.
The proceedings listed in Section 20(7) of the 1988 Act all concern complaints which would at first instance be heard in the High Court. They are not generally proceedings taken by individuals seeking personal redress which could take the form of monetary compensation such as a tribunal can award where unfair dismissal or denial of statutory rights to time off has taken place. They include matters such as a union's failure to hold a proper ballot before calling on members to take or continue with industrial action, to hold proper election ballots for certain positions in the union, or to accord members their rights to inspect their union's accounting records. None of these issues involves proceedings against an employer.
The proceedings which the new clause seeks to add are quite different. They would all be heard, at first instance, by an industrial tribunal, and relate to complaints that an employer has unfairly dismissed, or otherwise discriminated against one of

815
his employees, including where this has been done on grounds relating to union membership.
The purpose of the commissioner is to provide, on application, material assistance without which union members might be unable or unwilling to take certain proceedings which may be necessary to prevent abuse of union power against union members. Her assistance can redress the disadvantage union members might otherwise face in bringing High Court proceedings when faced with the superior resources and facilities available to their union. The case for establishing the commissioner was set out in these terms in the 1987 Green Paper Trade Unions and their Members.
The present provisions of the Employment Act 1988 are appropriate to this role. The Government have made no proposals, and have no plans, to extend the commissioner's assistance to any proceedings that would be heard, at first instance, by an industrial tribunal.
The industrial tribunal system, which is available to union members, and others, complaining about employers' actions in breach of the sections of the 1987 Act cited in the new clause is much less formal, and less expensive, than the High Court.
In addition, an individual contemplating a complaint to an industrial tribunal might be able to draw on assistance from various sources, such as the legal aid "green form" scheme to help prepare his case and, if the person is a union member, such help as his union might be prepared to offer.
For all those reasons there is simply no need to extend the commissioner's assistance, which involves help towards the much more substantial cost of getting legal advice and representations for certain High Court proceedings, as the new clause proposes.
It has been argued that since the commissioner has been involved in few proceedings to date, that in some way justifies extending the scope of her assistance as proposed in the new clause.
The commissioner's office is small, and its running costs are minimal—around£0.3 million a year for staff, premises and similar expenditure. Even though her office opened for business only in December 1988, however, there has been a steady, and increasing, stream of inquiries, as the commissioner herself pointed out when publishing her report on her work during the last four months of the 1988–89 financial year.
If the mere existence of the commissioner helps to ensure that unions do not deny their members' rights, without any assisted proceedings coming to court, the Government would be well pleased. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The amendment has done one thing and that is to establish the Government's attitude. With great respect to the Minister, I thank him for his reply but just to tell me that this would extend actions against an employer as an objection, of course, is right. That is what it is for. To say that the parties would come together in an industrial tribunal and not in the High Court is,
816
with respect, a mere formality not worthy of debate. However, to say that the existing jurisdiction of the CROTUM cannot give rise to direct actions for compensation by the applicant is something that I accept. That is correct, and under the amendment it would extend to compensation actions in the industrial tribunals.
However, I must point out to the Minister that although that valid point has been made, it does not carry the Government very far, and I say that for the following reason. If they look at the types of action that will be brought in the High Court with support from the CROTUM and especially at an action which concerns a breach of the rules to recover union property contrary to the 1988 Act, that could equally found an action in some circumstances where compensation by way of damages might be a remedy available to a member within the compass of his written statement of claim in the High Court. Even within the present compass of the commissioner there is the possibility under a number of headings of an action in the High Court extending into a similar area.
The idea that we should not discuss it because it was discussed in 1988 reminded me of the advice in the famous book of Professor Cornford entitled Microcosmographica Academica. I cannot quote it but it goes roughly like this: "Thinking of not looking at it now for fear of what we might do, you should never cure a small injustice today for fear that you will take an even more just step tomorrow." The Minister appears to think that having got it wrong in 1988, if we went a little further today we might open up a most terrible justice. That may be right.
I shall naturally withdraw the amendment, but in doing so I wish to say that we shall keep an eye upon this matter. We hope that the Minister will say to his right honourable friend that the full report and the full budget of this office will be given the usual publicity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Period of employment necessary to qualify for statement of reasons for dismissal]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("two years") and insert ("nine months").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 31 extends from six months to two years the qualifying period of service needed for entitlement to a written statement of reasons for dismissal. Frankly, I do not understand the reasons for this. Ideally all employees should receive a written statement of the reasons for their dismissal. I understand that the proposal in the clause was originally put forward by the Government in the 1986 White Paper: Building Businesses not Barriers.
I expect that the Government will argue that the clause is being introduced because they wish to remove barriers and burdens on business. But I do not accept that providing a written statement of reasons for dismissal is a burden on business. Surely it is good management practice to do so. That

817
certainly is the view of the British Institute of Management and I understand that it opposes the clause.
Nor do I accept the argument also advanced by the Government that the qualifying period for a written statement should be the same as that for claims of unfair dismissal. That statement was made on Second Reading. In my view, that link is irrelevant. Individuals should have the right to know why their employment is being terminated. A written statement is valuable whether or not the individual is eligible to make a claim for unfair dismissal. There is a possibility that the real reason for dismissal could be sex or race discrimination or trade union activities for which no qualifying period is needed. However, without a written statement giving the employer's reason for dismissal the individual will be in a weak position to pursue a claim.
Not only the TUC and the British Institute of Management oppose the clause; the Law Society also does so. In its briefing on the Bill the Law Society states:
"It is our view that logically all dismissed employees should be entitled to a written statement of the reasons for dismissal".
However, in order to meet the Government part of the way I have tabled an amendment reducing to nine months the two-year period that they propose. From our standpoint that would be an improvement in the position. Two years appears to be an impossible time during which an employee would be without such an important right. For those reasons, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Rochester: As the noble Baroness has explained to the Committee, the qualifying period for the right referred to in the clause has, by the Government's measure, become the same as that applying to complaints of unfair dismissal. The Government treat the matter merely as a technical change. However, it is not good enough to regard it as a tidying up exercise, particularly when one remembers that this Government raised the qualifying period for unfair dismissal to two years. In my view, this is another example, as was last year's Employment Act, of the way in which a Bill works to the advantage of the employer and to the disadvantage of the employee.
The provision is opposed by a number of reputable organisations. The Department of Employment Research Paper No. 53 of 1985, dealing with unfair dismissal and employment practice in the 1980s found:
"very little sign that employment protection legislation was inhibiting industrial recovery or contributing to the high level of unemployment by discouraging employers from taking on new people".
In the following year another survey concluded that the main barrier to employment was lack of finance and high interest rates. I suggest that instead of restricting the rights of employees still further, as in the clause, the Government will be better advised to concentrate their attention on those vital problems because today they are more crucial than ever to our competitiveness.
818
Finally, I submit that current legislation concerning the need for written statements giving the reason for dismissal is not onerous for employers. It may be helpful to employees in enabling them to explain their situation to prospective employers. In my view, the qualifying period for entitlement to statements as to the reasons for dismissal should be left as it stands. But at least let the Government accept the proposal that it should be extended from six months rather than to two years.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: I do not support the amendment, although the suggestion for extending the period to nine months is most reasoned. The proposal does not appear to achieve the result which my noble friend and his colleagues desire. There are many areas in which employees are engaged on work which cannot manifest itself in a comparatively short space of time.
One must be fair also to employers. I recognise that there is a belief that there are no bad employees but only bad employers, but that is not generally true. Employers must be given a chance to ensure that the person whom they are employing is capable of and good at the job. For example, I know that in respect of a farm worker or gardener found in my walk of life it is difficult to assess within six months or nine months whether he is competent at the job. The efforts of that person can be seen only after a comparatively long time and it is only fair to the employer that he should be able to adjudge the situation.
Although I understand the reason, I hate the fact that one must give written warning to an employee. Once words have been spoken or written one cannot retract from the statement. If one warns an employee of bad work one has spoilt a certain relationship. It is not nice to feel that one must do that within a short space of time in order to remain within the law. An extension of the period to two years assists both sides in trying to assure, first, that the employee is competent at his job and, secondly, that the employer is satisfied. I do not agree with the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I understood the change in terms of bringing the period of time into line with that in respect of the industrial tribunal procedure. Under that procedure you cannot bring a case until you have been in employment for two years. Any written statement about why you were dismissed prior to that may be of benefit to you. However, it causes a great deal of work and has no effect on the tribunal because you are not eligible to bring a case if you have been in employment for only nine months.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is right. I am pleased that the noble Baroness and the noble Lords opposite are prepared to go some way towards meeting our objectives by proposing a qualifying period of nine months instead of the current six months. However, the Government cannot support their amendment because it fails to address the primary purpose of the clause. It is to

819
align the qualifying period for the right to a written statement of reasons for dismissal with that for the right to complain of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal.
The purpose of the written statement provision is to help someone to decide whether or not he has a case for making such a complaint. It makes no sense for a person to have the right—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: No.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps the noble Lord would like to tell me what else it is for.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord invites me to interrupt him, so I shall do so with pleasure.When dealing with other amendments we shall make the position clear. The employee needs to know the reasons for his dismissal—that is quite apart from unfair dismissal—in order to obtain another job, vindicate his character, meet any charges and obtain social security benefit. We shall come to that matter later. Perhaps the noble Lord does not know about that. If he does not, I suggest that he informs himself. Is it not utterly preposterous for the noble Lord to say that the only occasion on which one needs to have the reasons for one's dismissal is when one is going to an industrial tribunal? That does not recognise life at all. Only 27,000 people go to the tribunal. Far more are dismissed and they want to know why. Is that unreasonable?
Lord Strathclyde: I knew it was a mistake to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I shall come to those points in the course of the next few amendments. I am sure he is well aware of that.
With regard to existing employees I assure the Committee that although the implementation details have yet to be finalised, the Government have no desire to remove any protection which is already enjoyed. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned the Law Society.
Lord Rochester: I did not, but I am happy to agree with the findings of the Law Society on this matter.
Lord Strathclyde: It has been suggested by the Law Society that without a statement of the reasons for dismissal some employees will find it harder to obtain another job. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. Let me underline that we are changing the statutory requirements in relation to written statements. There is nothing to stop an employer giving such a statement to someone he dismisses despite the fact that there is no statutory entitlement.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord can never have been inside a works. A foreman may become fed up. He has words with an employee and says, "You are out". If he has to put in writing why he is dismissing the man he will think before he says, "Get your cards and go". That is real life. I fear that the noble Lord has never been near real life.
Lord Strathclyde: I disagree with that statement entirely. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, we shall continue to examine exactly what is meant by the written statement and what it is used for. Noble Lords opposite will contend that it is used for a whole range of things and I maintain that it is not.
Let us take the example of a reference which a former employer may be asked to supply to a prospective employer. Nobody will accept a dismissal notice as a reference. If an employer is to employ somebody, he will ask the former employer for a reference. After all, not every individual has a written statement of the reasons for his dismissal. The employer only has to give that if requested to do so by the dismissed employee.
I believe that I should refute that the lack of written reasons will affect claims for unemployment benefit. A person's entitlement to benefit can be affected by the reasons for his leaving his job. For example, if he left voluntarily or was dismissed for gross misconduct his benefit could be suspended for a certain period. Benefit offices are responsible for seeking from the claimant's former employer an explanation as to why the claimant left so that a decision can be taken on benefit entitlement. Those inquiries are carried out directly with the employer. There is no link whatever with the written statement provisions which we are now discussing. I assure Members of the Committee that the changes which we are making in employment protection legislation will not have any effect on the benefit entitlement of a recently dismissed employee.
I emphasise that there is no desire here to make it more difficult for a dismissed employee to obtain unemployment benefit. The dismissal note had no bearing on that fact before, has no bearing now and will have no bearing in the future when this becomes law. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord did not answer my point that this matter is of considerable importance in the internal operations of disciplinary and dismissal systems. This is a controlled exercise; namely, that an employer has to put in writing the reasons for dismissal. Now there will be no protection until two years have elapsed against arbitrary dismissal. As happens again and again, a foreman becomes fed up and tells someone that he must go. If he has to put that in writing he hesitates before doing so for no good reason. The noble Lord has not answered that point.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not follow that thinking. I do not see why that should be. Currently the written notice has no legal enforcement whatever. So why does it make any difference?
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord has been brought up in a totally legalistic system of industrial relations. However, he must understand that a great deal goes on inside industry which has not much to do with legal enforcement. However, these are valuable controls over the way in which people behave and for ensuring just dealings between people in positions of

821
responsibility and their subordinates. That is the point I am trying to make; I cannot make it more clearly.
Viscount Mountgarret: I wonder if my noble friend is really getting the point across. I do not wish to be impertinent in suggesting that he does not know his business, but this matter is rather confusing. There may be a feeling that an employee is dismissed and is then given written reasons as to why he is dimissed. That is not so. I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong. I believe that the current situation is, and will be, that before an employee is dismissed, he must receive not one but two written notices of why he is dismissed. Is the noble Baroness correcting me?
Baroness Seear: The point is that now a person has no access to a tribunal until two years have elapsed after starting the employment. His legal rights do not commence until that time. And that is what we are concerned about.
Viscount Mountgarret: I take the point of the noble Baroness. However, under present legislation there is no requirement upon an employer to give written notice of complaint or intention to dismiss up to six months. As I understand it the Government wish to extend that requirement to two years. The point I make is that it is desirable to extend it to two years because in many areas of employment it is difficult to ascertain whether or not an employee is actually proving his worth. As I said when I intervened, I find it rather sad that when an employer has to try to mark his card, he must put it in writing to an employee why he is dissatisfied. If you put it in writing or speak verbally you cannot undo it. You sow the seeds of mistrust. I prefer to have an opportunity of being given rather longer for a bedding-in period to ensure justice from the employee's and the employer's points of view. That is why I do not agree with the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps the noble Viscount will accept that the situation which he describes is not one to which those supporting the amendment are insensitive. There is a problem in many employments as to the probationary period. There is a problem as to the probationary period within which a person shows more than reasonable proof that he is competent to do the job or that he is someone to be relied upon. I believe that that period will differ in many different employments.
Accepting that there is such a difficulty which the employer has to look to, a reason for the worker's dismissal in that period will exist. It may be a forecast that he will not be any good or that he has been found to be dishonest. It may simply be that the works can no longer afford a certain number of workers and he is redundant. Whatever the reason, is it not right that he should be given it straight? I appreciate and understand that both the employer and the employee may be embarrassed. But to tell someone that he no longer has a job without giving proper notice is unreasonable. That is what this is about. It is not about gumming up the probationary period. It is concerned with whether or not the
822
person who has lost his job should be given the honest reason—and it may be a perfectly good reason. Does that not meet half way the arguments of the noble Viscount?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: We are perhaps getting away from the essence of this discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, chastised me for not knowing enough about how industry works and how people are sacked. What we are talking about is a right that was introduced by the Labour Government in 1975. It is a right that had a fundamental link between the right to go to an industrial tribunal and the provision of written reasons for dismissal so that the employee could decide whether or not there was a case. That was all. There was no suggestion that perhaps the manager would have some thinking time if he had to write a letter. It was purely so that the employee could make the decision. That is all that we are talking about now.
The qualifying period to go to an industrial tribunal is two years. Surely it must make sense that the qualifying period to obtain a written statement must also be two years. That is all that is at stake.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: We have drifted around on this subject. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret has perhaps tended to confuse the issue of the written warning that has to be given up to the two-year period. As I understand it, the amendment addresses itself purely to this: after you are dismissed—and you can be dismissed at any time up to two years without prior notice—it is then a question of when you are entitled to receive a written reason as to why you are dismissed.
I believe that the period of nine months is not enough but I am not sure whether two years is not too long. It is just a matter of Civil Service neatness to try to have two years in order to match the time within which one can take a dismissal to a tribunal. It might be advisable for the Government to consider a shorter period. We have also tended to overlook the point that someone who is dismissed can ask for the reason, whether or not it is in writing. I am amazed at how often, in industrial tribunals, when people are asked why they have been dismissed—these are people who are entitled to have the reason given in writing—they reply that they did not ask. Many people do not ask but just say, "That was it, and I went".
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made a valid point. People in this country, and perhaps throughout the world, do not like to commit themselves in writing to anything that is not soundly based. Perhaps such a requirement would prevent an employee being dismissed in, say, a moment of bad temper. However, I do not support the amendment. Nine months is too short but I do not see why the period has to be fixed at two years just for the sake of neatness.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am disappointed with the Government's response to this amendment. As the Minister said, we have attempted to go some part of the way towards meeting a case made by the

823
Government with which we fundamentally do not agree. That is why we tabled an amendment reducing the period from two years to nine months; though we share the view of the Law Society and others that there appears to be no reason at all why individual employees should not have the right to know, in writing, why they are being dismissed irrespective of length of service.
I fail to see the link between the enabling period to go to an industrial tribunal and the question of providing reasons for dismissal. It is true that the two periods were the same in 1975 when the Labour Government first introduced this legislation, but there seems no real reason for maintaining that link because, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has already explained to the Committee, there are numerous reasons why an employee ought to be told why he is being dismissed quite apart from the possibility that he may feel he has a case for unfair dismissal to take to a tribunal.
There is the employee's feeling of self-respect, justification, and knowledge that he may not have performed effectively. He may need this knowledge if he is to pursue other jobs on the labour market, not just as a reference but for his own satisfaction in order better to pursue his career. As we said earlier, this is an employee's right. There seems no reason why it should not be a statutory right.
If, as the Minister said, the clerk concerned with social security receives from the employer the reasons why the employee has been dismissed, why should that employee not also receive those reasons. There is no logic in saying that those written reasons should not be available to the employee. Nor do I believe that it can be argued that it is a burden on business. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, indicated, it can sometimes be helpful to an employer to have an obligation placed upon those who supervise staff not to be too hasty. If the reason for dispensing with an employee has to be written down it would have a restraining influence on arbitrary actions in the employment environment.
For all those reasons I cannot accept that this is an unreasonable amendment. We have gone part of the way to meet a basic case with which we disagree but the Government have not been prepared to accept that. In those circumstances I have no alternative but to test the feeling of the Committee.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Airedale, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Attlee, E.

Aylestone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blease, L.

David, B.

Bottomley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ennals, L.

824

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mayhew, L.

Falkland, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Foot, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Northfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Parry, L.

Phillips, B.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rochester, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay, L.

Serota, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Stedman, B.

Listowel, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Underhill, L.

McCarthy, L.

Walston, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

White, B.

Mais, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hood, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allerton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Alport, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Knollys, V.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Lawrence, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Birdwood, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

McCoU of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Manton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brookes, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Middleton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cawley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Cox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L.

Norrie, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, L.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Pender, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Gridley, L.

Radnor, E.

Haig, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reay, L.

Renton, L.

Harvington, L.

Renwick, L.

Henley, L.

Rugby, L.

Hesketh, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Hives, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

825

Savile, L.

Teviot, L.

Seebohm, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Selborne, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Ullswater, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathspey, L.

Wise, L.

Swansea, L.

Young, B.

Swinfen, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 11, line 26,leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a request for information in the sense that Clause 13(2) gives the Secretary of State a new power by adding to Section 149 of the 1978 Act. That affords the Secretary of State the power by order to vary or exclude certain parts of the 1978 Act. Most are either technical matters or those going to the exclusion or qualification of particular groups of workers.
I believe I am right in saying that the only orders made under Section 149 relate to redundancy payments for local government employees in 1983 and 1985 and the order of 1985 for the variation of qualifying periods as regards unfair dismissal. The Government are taking this new power under Section 149 giving the Secretary of State power to vary or exclude in respect of the section.
What is the purpose for which the Secretary of State wants this power? Is he going to vary the section so that the employer has no obligation to give reasons for dismissal to certain groups? Is the Secretary of State merely going to vary the two-year period by extending it? What does he have in mind? We are mystified as to why he should want this power as regards this section. I shall be happy if the Minister can explain.
Lord Strathclyde: This amendment would retain the current position whereby any change to the length of the qualifying period for the right to a written statement of reasons for dismissal has to be made by primary legislation. There are of course arguments of speed and convenience which can be made in support of the proposal to provide for any future changes made by statutory instrument. There is also logic in our proposal. The Secretary of State already has power to vary the qualifying period for the right to make a complaint of unfair dismissal by means of a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution. He has had that power since the unfair dismissal provisions were first introduced in 1971 in the Industrial Relations Act. Clause 13(2) simply means that the long-standing arrangements for making changes to the qualifying period for claims of unfair dismissal will also apply to any necessary changes in the qualifying period for the right to a written statement.
Any order to amend the qualifying period will have to be laid in draft and approved by a resolution of each House; so noble Lords will have the opportunity to consider and debate the detailed
826
provisions. The proposal does not reveal a hidden agenda of further proposals for changes in the qualifying period for the right to reasons for dismissal. Clause 13 will simply ensure that the rights to written reasons for dismissal and to claim unfair dismissal will be on all fours as regards the length of the qualifying period and the mechanism for making any future changes in the length of the qualifying periods. Our proposals are aimed at clarifying and simplifying the legislation. We have no plans at this stage for further changes in these qualifying periods.
With those reassurances I hope that the noble Lord sees that our proposal is logical and sensible and that he will not press this amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister. I am not sure that we agree that the proposal is logical and sensible. But at least it is clear. This is an amendment to oil the mechanism. At the moment the Government have no plans to increase the period, but every year there are new Bills and I suppose that, every quarter, we can expect a few statutory instruments. It is quite clear that the Government have oiled the mechanism so that the change in the length of the qualifying period both for unfair dismissal and written reasons can continue jumping along from two years to we know not what.
I am happy that the Minister has explained the position carefully. I thank him again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
("(3) Subsection (2) of section 53 of the 1973 Act shall not apply to an employee who:

(a) is summarily dismissed without any notice or is dismissed without lawful due notice, and within fcurteen days of such dismissal claims that he was unfairly dismissed or

(b) is denied unemployment benefit on the ground that he was guilty of misconduct.").

The noble Lord said: I intend to move the amendment briefly. I wish however to treat it with the intensity that it deserves. The amendment says to the Government, "Whatever else you do, surely there are two groups of people who are entitled to written statements of their dismissal". We are talking about the involuntary loss of the job of an employee at the decision of the employer. We are not necessarily speaking of unfair dismissal—simply of dismissal. The amendment refers to the case of the employee who does not receive a notice to which he is lawfully entitled; namely, at summary dismissal or at short notice.
A second type of case has already come before the Chamber and unusually, has been very clearly revealed. There is often some dispute but it appears to be common ground that where an employee is dismissed without notice and the employee goes to the social security office, the first question is whether he has made the necessary contributions. I am thinking of case that I know of.
The Committee will know of the matters to be gone through in that respect. If the employee jumps

827
that hurdle, the benefit officer may say, as has happened in a couple of these cases, "We have heard from your employer that you were dismissed for misconduct". I do not say that it is true in every case. Indeed I would say that it is not true probably in the majority of cases. I guess; one does not know. However, in a large number of cases the employer, not having given reasons to the employee, is bound to give reasons in a sense—and nearly always does give reasons—to the social security office.
And so, two things have happened. The employee has been dismissed without knowing why—I shall take the cases within the confines of my amendment; in this case there had not been proper notice —and/or goes to the unemployment benefit office and is told that he was guilty of misconduct and that that was the reason for his dismissal. He says "I've never heard of that. It's news to me". He is told, "Oh, there is an allegation that you have been fighting on the shop floor". He was the kind of person of whom that might well have been true. He looked as though he would fight. However, it was not true in this case. He eventually found out what the charge was but he did not receive his benefit. It was held up for a long time. Is it suggested that that kind of justice is proper?
We say, first, that where the employer is in breach of the contractual obligation or the obligation of minimum notice written in by the 1978 Act, the employee should be entitled to a reason, and a reason in writing. I appreciate the points that have been made and I was trying to be helpful when I interrupted the noble Lord who spoke earlier. Of course there are difficulties of embarrassment and difficulties in ending a probationary period, but the person dismissed is entitled to the reason in that circumstance.
Secondly, we say that he is entitled to a clear reason in circumstances where the employer is communicating with the benefit officer. If the employer can give the reason to the benefit officer, why on earth should he not be under an obligation to give it, and to give it in writing? Giving it in writing means that the person concerned can consult with an adviser over what has happened. If he goes to his trade union office or to his local citizens' advice bureau—I wish that Ministers would read more of the reports of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux; one which has just been published is relevant to such cases and to the whole Bill—and says, "My employer has told the local unemployment benefit office that I was fighting", the circumstances must be examined. However, if he goes along and says that he has been dismissed and shows a piece of paper which says that he was dismissed for fighting, at least the advice can start from something concrete. The piece of paper will show that the employer has said that and no doubt is prepared to substantiate it.
We have chosen two narrow areas. We have chosen people who have been thrown out on their ear without notice and people who are told that they are guilty of misconduct and are then deprived of unemployment benefit. It occurs to me that the drafting is open to challenge. Perhaps subparagraph (b) should read:
828
"is denied unemployment benefit on the ground that he was guilty of misconduct or of having left his employment without just cause".
We are putting the amendment forward as a matter of principle. I hope that the Government can be a little unbending in considering real people. One of the people I am thinking of is a single mother. She was thrown out of her job without notice and was later denied unemployment benefit. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government cannot accept that, whatever may be previous law and regardless of periods of probation and qualification, such a person, if she wanted it, should be entitled to a piece of paper saying that she was sacked because of incompetence or because she had been fighting. I cannot see how anyone could possibly oppose that in principle. It is in principle that I move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure that I recognise the type of case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and the law as it stands today and the way he described it. It sounded like such an outrageous abuse that I would be more than happy to look into it further.
This amendment seeks to exempt two categories of employee from the requirement to serve any qualifying period in order to qualify for the right to a written statement of reasons for dismissal on request. First, it seeks to exempt those dismissed without any notice or without lawful due notice provided that they claim within 14 days that they have been unfairly dismissed. This is misguided. Those who do not have two year's continuous employment will generally not qualify for the right not to be unfairly dismissed, but under the amendment tabled by the noble Lord in order to qualify for a written statement of the reasons for dismissal many employees will no doubt submit a claim of unfair dismissal although it has no prospect of success. I cannot believe that this is what the noble Lord intends.
Secondly, the amendment seeks to provide those who have been denied unemployment benefit on grounds of misconduct the right to written reasons for dismissal without serving the normal qualifying period. This is based on a serious misconception. Although we have touched on this point this afternoon, perhaps I may re-emphasise that the provisions on written statements of reasons for dismissal have no bearing on a person's entitlement to unemployment benefit. The regulations on unemployment benefit are completely separate and entirely different.
The legislation provides that anyone who leaves his employment voluntarily without just cause can be disqualified for up to 26 weeks from receiving unemployment benefit. The legislation also provides that benefit may be disqualified in cases where a person loses his employment through his own misconduct. Whether these rules apply is a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities. They are the adjudicating officer in the first instance; on appeal, the Social Security Appeal Tribunal; and on further appeal on a point of law, a social security commissioner. When a person first makes a claim for unemployment benefit a standard inquiry form

829
is sent to the last employer seeking reasons why the claimant left his employment. Claimants are allowed to comment on those statements given by their former employer. A case will be referred to adjudication only where the employer has given written confirmation of the reasons for dismissal. Where, despite reminder, this is not given, benefit would be paid in full, including any necessary arrears.
I hope that I have cleared up this problem of losing unemployment benefit and that, in the light of my remarks, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister for one thing—for his offer of help in the case to which I referred. It has been looked into. It is complicated, but matters are now much better than they were. As a matter of fact, as often happens in life, there were mistakes in what happened as much as evil purpose. It would have been much clearer if at a certain point the person concerned could have asked for a statement of the reasons for dismissal. That is how real life works. The Minister described to me the jurisdictions of the adjudication officers, the appeal tribunal and the social security commissioner. That does not help me to follow his argument that a written statement of misconduct has no bearing on unemployment benefit. Why, because he says so. I can tell him that it has a bearing on unemployed persons. They want to know.
Then the Minister says that, after the employer has told the adjudicating officer, the unemployed person is allowed to comment on the reasons that have been given in secret. Has he ever heard of natural justice? Does he know what its requirements are? To put it in its broadest terms, they are notice of the charge, an opportunity to reply to the charge and a fair opportunity of advice within an unbiased setting. But the procedure does not meet the terms of natural justice. Where an issue of misconduct is raised in regard to those who are without jobs and who, from their bedsitting rooms, do not look forward with any great joy to appeals to commissioners which take considerable time, one cannot say that there is no value in their knowing the reason for their dismissal. They want to know, though, as has been said this afternoon, it is quite true and extraordinary that a number of people who are dismissed accept dismissal and do not ask the reason. That has been my experience and is the experience of others with much greater experience whose work I have read.
The submission of unfair dismissal claims has nothing to do with the amendment. Paragraph (a) of the amendment touches not on cases concerning unfair dismissal, but on those concerning failure to give notice. In law, that is a matter of wrongful dismissal, which falls within the jurisdiction of the county court and the High Court, not of the industrial tribunal, at least until the Government make the order to transfer those actions to the industrial tribunal. It may be that someone who is summarily dismissed will bring an unfair dismissal claim in the tribunal, but, if people do not know the
830
reasons for their dismissal, it is highly likely that they will fill in Form 1 in order to see the reason for their dismissal. I have heard people talk of such cases. Where no reason is given, people say "It wasn't fair that I was dismissed. I don't know why I was dismissed. I'll fill out Form 1 to get the respondent's answer and then we'll see what the employer says". But it is a waste of time if there is a good reason.
It is absurd to cite such arguments. We shall withdraw the amendment, but this is a matter that tests the Government at a different level. They always prate about the individual, as though he was their concern. Here is the individual, and they are not particularly concerned, judging from the answer that the Minister gave us. We must look again at this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause: —
("Secondary action by employees.
The Employment Act 1980 shall be amended as follows—At the end of section 17(2) there shall be added the words, "and if no associated employee of that employer is such a party".").
The noble Lord said: This is another fairness amendment, which relates to the Employment Act 1980 and to secondary action which has now become a term of art in our law. Perhaps I may preface my remarks by again saying that the amendment does not attempt to produce the law as we would see it.
This is an area where many people think—and, as I shall show in a moment, it is considered internationally—that the Government have gone too far. The problem arises because Section 17 of the 1980 Act defines secondary action in relation to a trade dispute when a person, especially the union, induces a worker to break a contract of employment, but, under that contract of employment, the employer is not a party to the trade dispute.
The amendment does nothing to change that structure, but there are two ways in which real life gives it a rather different meaning from that which it appears to have. In real life, a business is organised as a group of companies with each company separate from the others, each company is a separate employer and, if workers take action against one company rather than another, they will normally be found to be taking secondary action. If they take action in a situation in which all the subsidiaries are involved, they frequently find that employers are involved who are not employers under the contract of employment of workers party to the trade dispute with their own employer. The situation has been manipulated, although that may not have happened often. It was manipulated in the famous Wapping dispute, one of the fiercest industrial battles of recent times. When the employers moved their work, set up 11 subsidiaries and never denied the suggestion that the reason for having the distributive company, the supply company, the printing company and

831
various other companies for different purposes was to inhibit the legality of industrial action which was successful in certain respects.
In 1980, in reply to that suggestion, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, said that there was an exception in the section. There were in fact three exceptions, but only one is relevant here; namely, what is sometimes called the gateway to legality, where secondary action is permitted if it interrupts the contract with a first supplier or first customer of the employer in dispute. When the noble Lord, Lord Prior, was Secretary of State, he brought to his press conferences great charts—we all remember them—that showed how the exception would operate.
We are now some nine years on and it is right to say that it is generally accepted that that exception has never been known to operate in any major industrial dispute or major legal case. It is defeated by a congeries of reasons, the most important of which is exactly the same point as the first; namely, that the exception does not operate where the business is organised as separate subsidiaries in a group of companies or as separate companies—associated companies or employers, as they are called in the Act and in our amendment. That merely means companies that are under the same control or where one controls the other.
That was so in 1984 in the case of Dimbleby v The National Union of Journalists. If the union had taken action, as it thought it had, in a form that would interrupt the contract between Dimbleby and another enterprise, it would have been within the exception. However, it was found that the contract between Dimbleby's and the enterprise of T. Bailey Forman was with a different subsidiary from the company which was the employer in dispute and which had sacked the journalists. The variety of subsidiary companies therefore prevented the application of the exclusion.
I am happy to go into the facts of the Dimbleby case if the Minister wants me to, but I do not think that he will deny that, in that case as in a number of others, the definition of secondary action includes only the employer to the trade dispute. It does not include as a party the associated employer of that employer. That makes it almost impossible to satisfy what were said in 1980 to be the purposes of subsection (3) of Section 17, which has never been operative; namely, to allow a form of secondary action where there is a direct link between the enterprises.
That was very much at the core of the view of the Conservative Party itself in 1958 when, in a well known document on trade union law called A Giant Strength—one of the pillars of the historical literature on the subject—the Inns of Court Conservative Society, whose anonymous authorship is well known to include those who are now most eminent lawyers in the land, said:
"Once it is conceded that the strike is necessary to place countervailing bargaining power in the hands of a workman against his master, it is difficult to see why it is improper for the workers in industry A to use their power in support of the workers in industry B in the expectation or on the assurance that the workers in industry B will reciprocate in due course; … Further,
832
the old conception of a separate industry, and certainly of one industry isolated from the rest of the economy, is outmoded".
It continues:
"The power to strike sympathetically is politically, socially and economically justified if, without it, employees will have insufficient bargaining power; but not otherwise. On this test, in conditions of full employment and a delicately balanced economy … it is almost certainly unnecessary".
The society tests it. It does not say that it is out of the question. The same approach would lead to saying that at least it should be allowed where one faces the real employer. I use that phrase as the title, as it were, of the second part of my argument. It is found in the report of the committee of experts of the International Labour Organisation, an agency—the Minister said something; I am not sure what it was—of the United Nations which cannot just be put aside by the Government. I understand that the Government have not yet made their formal answer to that document, but it deserves to be looked at by the Committee.
In April this year the committee of experts looked at our law on this matter in relation to Convention No. 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. It said, having looked at the changes in the law, especially to Section 17:
"Taken together, these changes appear to make it virtually impossible for workers and unions lawfully to engage in any form of boycott activity, or 'sympathetic' action against parties not directly involved in a given dispute. The Committee has never expressed any decided view on the use of boycotts as an exercise of the right to strike. However, it appears to the Committee that where a boycott relates directly to the social and economic interests of the workers involved in either or both of the original dispute and the secondary action, and where the original dispute and the secondary action are not unlawful in themselves, then that boycott should be regarded as a legitimate exercise of the right to strike. This is clearly consistent with the approach the Committee has adopted in relation to 'sympathy strikes'. It would appear that more frequent recourse is being had to to this form of action … because of the structure or the concentration of industries…. The Committee considers that a general prhibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse and that workers should be able to take such action provided the intial strike they are supporting is itself lawful".
The committee later says that it asked the Government to introduce amendments:
"which enable workers to take industrial action against their 'real' employer and which accord adequate protection of the right to engage in other legitimate forms of industrial action such as protest strikes and sympathy strikes, as guaranteed by Articles 3, 8 and 10 of the Convention".
That is why I used the phrase "the real employer". I may be able to sum this point up. There is a parallel with the previous debate on time off at a different level of industrial relations.
The amendment is not an attempt to get rid of the Government's section on secondary action. It leaves that as it is. It says that if we are to have such a rule, then is not the ILO committee of experts reasonable when it says that it should operate with respect to the real employer. The real employer is the company, with its associated companies. It is either those that it controls or those that control it. The legal personality of each company is frequently put aside by the law. It is put aside every week in tax law. It is put aside in other areas of the law when legislation demands or courts decide.
It so happens that in the Dimbleby case this place decided that it could not judicially make an

833
exception, rightly or wrongly. I say that workers are entitled to have their collective rights, whatever the Government may think of them, and that they should operate on the basis that the ILO has suggested; namely, in respect of their real employer. The real employer is the economic entity—the group of companies: the employer and the associated employers with that company. That is the purport of the amendment.
I doubt whether the Government will accept the amendment. Perhaps they will comment on it. It will be interesting to see what line they pursue in resisting what we believe, on the basis of the ILO report, to be an unanswerable case. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I have some sympathy with the amendment in so far as its aim is to draw attention to the actions of employers that, by the expedient of setting up what may be a number of associated companies, can claim, successfully that they are being subjected to secondary action in a way that I do not believe the Government intended in their earlier legislation. That was the situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has reminded us, which obtained in the celebrated dispute at Wapping. There have been other similar instances. It may be that that point will be better dealt with in the Bill that we are promised in the next Session of Parliament, when it may be possible to deal in greater detail with the whole question of secondary action; but, like the noble Lord, I shall meanwhile be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter.
Lord Brightman: I also appreciate the merits of the proposed amendment, provided that "associated employer" means only that one employer is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other employer. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, whether that is his understanding of the amendment. If so, I suggest that "associated employer" should be defined in the amendment.
The expression "associated employer" embraces a large spectrum, and if an amendment along those lines is to be put into the Bill it is necessary that it should be explained. My understanding of the amendment is that it is intended to apply only where there has been manipulation; that is to say, that one employeer is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other employer.
Lord Strathclyde: The new clause seeks to extend the scope for lawful organisation of secondary action. The Government believe that there can be no case for such a step, and the new clause is therefore unacceptable.
The present law on immunity for inducing secondary action was introduced in order to tackle one of the most unacceptable features of industrial action during the 1970s—the indiscriminate inducement of industrial action among workers whose employer was not party to the trade dispute as a means of bringing pressure to bear on the employer in dispute.
834
It is worth recalling that the law still enables the inducement of industrial action to have immunity form civil proceedings if it takes place in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between workers and their own employer. It is sometimes all too easy to forget that fact. In any circumstances in which there is such a dispute, immunity for inducing interference with contracts will be available.
Section 17 of the 1980 Act, however, removes the statutory immunities which might otherwise be available for inducing interference with contracts from inducement of certain secondary action. Such action is defined in Sections 17(1) and 17(2). Section 17(2) provides that inducement of secondary action, in relation to a trade dispute, takes place only when it involves interference with a contract of employment and the employer under the contract is not a party to the trade dispute.
Other provisions in Section 17 provide for exceptions to that rule; for example, if the inducement is targeted in certain specified ways and the action is likely to achieve the relevant purposes the statutory immunities may still be available.
In particular, the section makes immunity possible for inducing industrial action by workers at an associated employer of an employer in dispute, or at the associated employer's customers or suppliers, where both the following conditions are satisfied: first, the principal purpose of the action is to prevent or disrupt the supply of goods or services which, but for the dispute, would have been supplied by or to the employer in dispute; and, secondly, the action is likely to achieve that purpose. This is very far from giving carte blanche in terms of immunity for organising industrial action among employees of an associated employer of the employer in dispute.
The new clause seeks, in effect, to extend the scope for lawful organisation of secondary action so that it would be available for inducement of employees of any employer associated with the employer in dispute. This would be a very significant extension, and one for which the Government see no justification.
What is meant by "associated employer"? The answer is to be found in Section 30(5) of the 1974 Act, which states:
"For the purposes of this Act any two employers are to be treated as associated if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control".
There is nothing in this that would necessarily imply that events relating to a trade dispute in one company would be of direct relevance to the affairs of an associated company. Noble Lords opposite may argue that this is always and invariably the case and attempt to justify the new clause on this basis. But that is in reality mere surmise on their part. The better test is whether the inducement of industrial action among employees of an associated employer satisfies the relevant tests set out in Section 17, which I have already described.
We have heard much from the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, about cases which demonstrate—so it is claimed—that employers have split up existing

835
companies or set up new companies in order to reduce the scope for lawful inducement of industrial action against them. I have to say that mere assertion does not make a case. Employers may have a multitude of reasons for organising or reorganising their businesses; for example, to create separate profit centres or to devolve managerial authority in respect of particular operations. Nothing I have heard has convinced me that industrial relations legislation has played any really significant part in the nature of such decisions.
The noble Lord may find it offensive that companies should be allowed lawfully to organise their businesses as they see fit in order to ensure that their prosperity and secure employment can be provided, but this Government do not.
The noble Lord also went on to argue that the International Labour Organisation has in some way condemned United Kingdom law on immunity for organising secondary action. Such assertions are far from the truth. An ILO committee of experts commented on aspects of UK compliance with ILO Convention 87 in a report issued earlier this year. Such committees frequently make similar observations and remarks about legislation in a number of countries, including several of our EC partners.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will the Minister allow me to intervene? Would he name those countries in the EC and the issues on which they have been condemned?
Lord Strathclyde: I am sure that I shall be able to do so, but perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to continue. The UK Government are sure that nothing in this legislation is incompatible with the guarantees afforded by ILO Convention 87. The Government are in the process of responding to the ILO committee's report, and as part of this response explain why its views may have been based on misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the relevant law and the context in which it operates.
Perhaps I may briefly respond to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, concerning our European Community partners. I cite, as one example, West Germany and the right to strike. Of course, at the root of all this are the views of the Labour Party towards secondary action as a whole. The conference that we saw a couple of weeks ago included the new concept of a genuine interest. I do not propose to cover that argument now.
Our belief is that there is no justification for making it easier to organise secondary action than is currently the case under the law as it stands. If the noble Lord is determined to press this new clause, he will be seeking to make it easier to organise more and more damaging strikes. Unless that is his true intention, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, in the light of what he has just said will he answer this question? If the Government were finally to be condemned by the last committee in the ILO which
836
considers the matter, so that there is nowhere else to go, would they take any notice and repeal the legislation, or would they ignore it?
Lord Strathclyde: That is an entirely hypothetical situation. We shall have to wait to see what the response of the Government is.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister's last remark is rather alarming because either the Government will take action on it or they will have to do what the employees in the Foreign Office would tell them to do —that is, to honour their international obligations by denouncing the basic convention on freedom of association. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government are contemplating that. I do not know.
Perhaps I may start by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He is quite right in saying that in some respects the matter would be better dealt with under the next Bill which we now know will be coming. The only trouble is that when I was drafting the amendment we did not know that there would be another Bill. These Bills arrive so fast and furious now that one never knows quite when to put the amendments in. No doubt we shall come to it again.
I appreciate the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. The Minister has already read out the definition in Section 30(5) of the 1974 Act. I apprehend that there is exactly the same definition in Section 153 of the 1978 Act. It is a rather curious definition because it only includes companies. As has been found in a number of cases, other employers do not come within the purview. It concerns companies and the text is control —the holding of a subsidiary company. A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal sticks to the notion of 51 per cent. in recognisable hands. That is where control of different companies is distributed among different members of a family and one cannot find quite 51 per cent. in both companies. These were not said to be associated companies. However, we all know that these definitions have a habit of producing such problems.
Control of a holding and subsidiary character, or two subsidiaries with one controller of companies, is the test. I appreciate the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that some narrower, delimiting definition should be used here. With respect, I would resist his definition of "wholly owned", because it would be so easy to put it aside by stepping outside the wholly owned character; that is even if one defined it in what I might call a taxation way, to be loose at the edges.
However, it may be that some sensible definition could be formed. For example, it seems to me, with great respect, that the only point the Minister had was when he touched upon but did not develop the point that groups of companies holding subsidiaries may be conglomerates. It may well be that the interests in one company of their employees may be wholly different from those in another. I was interested that one of the major points made by the Minister was that our amendment might allow for secondary action where—if I may use the example of

837
a group—the employees of a subsidiary had interests which had no direct relevance to the interests of the employees of the holding company who were, let us say, primarily in dispute. That interested me very much.
This is all from the point of view of the Minister. I can see from his point of view that it is a very interesting test. It rather implies that if there is direct relevance, what the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society said in 1958 still has a great deal of sense. It was that that is secondary action which should be allowed. We may hear more about direct relevance in the future debate; it is a very important phrase.
As regards Section 17(4), the exception in the 1980 Act for associated employers was a special one, as made clear in the Dimbleby judgments, especially by the late Lord Diplock. It requires substituted goods and a contract at a time when the supply is interrupted. That is a particular area and was always meant to be. The point we are making is more general. That leads me to say a few more words about the ILO. I am sure that many people, not merely in this Chamber but also in Geneva, will read Hansard with great care.
I am grateful to the Minister for answering my question as regards which other European partners have got into difficulty, let us say, with the ILO committee of experts and freedom of association committee. I had forgotten the example that the Minister produced. It was the example of the civil servants—the Beamte—in the Federal Republic of Germany who do not have any right to strike. I had forgotten that as I am not accustomed to cases where workers have no right to strike. But that is where we have got.
Frankly, the Minister is only trying to make me cross when he says there is no criticism of the Government in the ILO report. He has read the report; he knows that it recommends that the Government should change the law. That is what the report is about. It is not just an odd comment off the cuff late at night after a good bottle of brandy in Geneva. This is a direct request—it is true that that is forwarded to the other ILO bodies—to change the law not merely on Section 17 but also on Section 29 which defines a trade dispute as the law now stands. It also asks for a change on something as outrageous as Section 3 of the 1988 Act where a union is unable to apply its rules, even after a ballot in which the vast majority have voted for a strike, to dissociate itself from the minority who have remedies in court. The report has some extreme comments on that situation. All the comments add up and the ILO sees the relevance of all these things as one picture.
The Government know very well that they have been criticised. They should not try to sidestep that criticism. They should try and answer it if they can, not simply try to defend every scintilla of every word they have put on the statute book since 1980. I should have thought that by now the Government would get the feel of things. I should have thought the Government would realise that people are fed up, especially in this area, with the Government's
838
attitude of not giving way one iota. We shall pursue matters in future in this area with the benefit of the Minister's reply but not, in my view, with the benefit of the great wisdom of the Government's policy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 14 [Redundancy payments: assimilation of age limits for men and women]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 11, leave out lines 32 to 43 and insert—
("(1) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if he or she has before the relevant date attained the age of 65.").
The noble Baroness said: We now enter a different arena altogether. With the leave of the Committee, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37, although they are not grouped together, as they cover pretty much the same ground. I am indebted to Age Concern for briefing on the issues covered by the amendments. I am sure that it will be well known that this organisation has already achieved a great deal for our older citizens and has interested itself in the position of the older employee.
Clause 14 introduces into redundancy law the concept of a normal retiring age contained in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, Section 64(1)(b). In operation this is a complicated concept, so complicated that many industrial tribunals and many personnel and trade union officials, let alone workers, find some difficulty in understanding and applying it. As properly understood, the concept can create significant injustice as part of an exclusion rule can deprive older workers of the protection available to younger employees. Where an employee is deemed to be over normal retiring age, he can be arbitrarily excluded from any right to redundancy payment without the protection of the law.
The concept has created hardship in practice. Judgments have accepted that employers are entitled to raise or lower the age at which employees are to be mandatorily retired. So long as reasonable notice is given and the new policy is carried out, the reasonable expectations of employees are taken to have changed and the new retiring age is then put into policy. One particular case which Age Concern quotes is Hughes v. the DHSS 1985 where this view is upheld.
There would be nothing to stop an employer arbitrarily changing the retirement age from 60 to 55, or perhaps even lower, and thereby depriving employees of their right to redundancy payments. The purpose of Amendment No. 36 is to ensure that all employees under the age of 65 have the same treatment in redundancy law. The purpose of Amendment No. 37 is to define the words "normal retiring age" so that employers cannot lower it as a means of bypassing the protection for older workers envisaged in the previous amendment.
We had some debate about discrimination on age grounds last night. Unfortunately, the debate took

839
place rather late at night and for that reason the amendment was not pressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and her noble friends. Nevertheless, I had the impression that the Government were reasonably sympathetic to issues of age discrimination. Certainly, in view of the changing demographic situation to which reference has been repeatedly made during discussion of the Bill, there is a necessity to do something to ensure that the older worker has some protection. With those comments, I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness oversimplifies this issue by simply suggesting that redundancy payments should be available to anyone under the age of 65, provided they are discharged in the ordinary way. There are quite a number of occupations which have an earlier age of retirement. I shall refer to one obvious example which I am sure the Committee will be aware of. In our foreign service, retirement—in my view, most misguidedly—is insisted upon at the age of 60 by the Foreign Office. If someone is retained beyond the age of 60, as occasionally happens in the case of ambassadors of considerable quality and then he is dismissed, it would be rather odd that he should then receive a redundancy payment, having already passed the age at which he might be expected to be retired.
I believe the Bill as it stands deals with this complicated matter as effectively as possible. I am quite sure that simply substituting a blanket age of 65, regardless of the normal age of retirement of the person concerned, would cause far more injustice and difficulty than can be expected from the present law. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: The aim of this amendment is to make a redundancy payment payable to an employee up to the age of 65, whether or not he or she has passed the normal retiring age in his firm. However, a redundancy payment is paid to compensate an individual for the loss of a job which he or she had a reasonable expectation might continue. When an employee reaches retiring age that expectation no longer exists, so there is really no loss which falls to be compensated. Of course it would be unusual anyway for a person to be made redundant after passing retiring age. Normally, such a person would have retired and left.
It is increasingly common for people to retire at an age below 65, and when such an age is reached it is right and logical that redundancy entitlements should cease provided that age is non-discriminatory between men and women, as is the case with unfair dismissal.
In order for an age limit below 65 to apply there must be a normal retiring age applicable within the firm and to the particular job. For instance, if a firm has a normal retiring age of 62 for all its executive and clerical staff but that age does not apply to cleaners and catering employees, then those ancillary workers will be covered by the 65 age limit.
840
I should like to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Our proposal fairly reflects the purpose and spirit of the statutory redundancy scheme. Therefore I do not believe that the amendment should be accepted.
Turning to Amendment No. 37, initially I had some difficulty in understanding .he meaning of the new clause. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the intention. I note that when the Bill was in Committee in another place the Opposition brought forward similar amendments to the concept of a normal retirement age in relation to unfair dismissal claims. If the intention of the Opposition is to repeat their proposals, with some variations, Amendment No. 37 goes only part of the way.
As drafted, the amendment would make sense only if at the same time amendments were made to Sections 57 and 64 of the 1978 Act to allow for the "reaching of retirement age" to be one of the reasons an employer must give to justify dismissal. That alone would be reason enough for me to urge the Committee to reject the amendment on the grounds that it would increase the risk of an employer having to defend complaints of unfair dismissal from employees who had simply been retired.
Let us look more closely at the amendment. It seeks to define the concept of normal retirement age by reference to the reasonable expectations of the employees in the occupation concerned. The noble Baroness claims that there is a good deal of confusion about the meaning of "normal retirement age" and that a definition is needed to reduce uncertainty. I do not agree with that assertion. It is for industrial tribunals to determine the meaning of "normal retirement age" in a particular case, and in doing so they will doubtless take account of the conclusions of the House of Lords in the Waite v. GCHQ case in 1983. In that case it was concluded that if there is a contractual arrangement on retirement at a specific age the presumption will be that that is also the normal retirement age, but that if in practice employees holding the same position as the complainant regularly retire at a different age, such employees could reasonably have come to regard that different age as their normal retiring age. I am not, however, aware of a significant volume of cases in which the uncertainty is such as to require changes to the law. Moreover, I believe that the amendment would tend towards greater confusion and uncertainty, for both employers and employees alike. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It is not my intention to press the amendments tonight. I am grateful for the explanation given by the Minister for opposing them. I shall study his explanation with some care and decide whether or not we should proceed further on those questions at Report stage.
I believe that there is some misunderstanding as to what the second amendment seeks to achieve. Our intention is to prevent a situation whereby an employer can decide on a certain normal retirement age for a particular individual which might not apply

841
to other employees. I thought that the amendment made it very clear that:
"'normal retiring age' means the age at which those employees, in the same position as that employee, reasonably expect to be retired as on the same day on which this Act is passed".
In other words, we do not want rights that an employee might otherwise have to be bypassed simply because the employer arbitrarily alters—as he can now—the normal retirement age. That was why we put down the amendment and linked it with Amendment No. 36, which sought to ensure that employees could not be robbed of entitlement to redundancy payments if they were deprived of employment on redundancy grounds below the age of 65.
However, in view of what the Minister said, I shall not press the amendments but I shall look carefully at what he said and take further advice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.>
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Abolition of redundancy rebates]:
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rochester: I shall speak very briefly to the Motion, of which I have given notice. Employers with fewer than 10 employees are at present entitled under the 1978 Act to rebates on their statutory redundancy payments, which they can recoup from the Redundancy Fund to which they have contributed. My noble friends and I were not happy when earlier legislation confined payment of redundancy rebates solely to those very small firms, feeling that they should be of more general application.
Now the relevant provisions of the 1978 Act are to be repealed so as to remove the entitlement altogether. It is such a short clause that the best way of obliging the Government to justify their action seemed to be to question the inclusion of the clause in the Bill. That is what I am now doing.
In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill the abolition of redundancy rebates for employers with fewer than 10 employees is estimated to result in savings to the Redundancy Fund of £7.5 million per annum. That represents only 5 per cent. of the overall total paid in rebates to employers in 1986–87, which is the last year for which I have figures. Yet in future no help of that kind will be available to the small firms involved.
Might that not be damaging, for a number of reasons? The business concerned might be harder to sell. In some cases firms might even be forced into bankruptcy when they would otherwise be contemplating only a few redundancies. It might even be that some small businesses, seeing that rebates were suddenly to stop, would conclude that if they were to receive any compensation from the Redundancy Fund they had better act quickly and
842
put the redundancies through as soon as possible. That would help nobody.
It is with those points in mind that I must ask the Government how they justify the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.
Lord McCarthy: It is with considerable pleasure that I support the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am very pleased that the party that he represents has thought fit to put down the Motion. If they had not done so—because we might have thought that the topic had been debated again and again both in this Chamber and in another place —we might not have had an opportunity to ask the Government why they propose this measure at this particular time. When one looks through the various statements which have been made it is remarkable how rarely the Government have been forced to give any explanation for what they now propose to do.
It is worth retreading the ground that we have covered in order to reach this point. As the noble Lord said, from 1965 we had a bipartisan policy on redundancy payments. It was started by a Conservative government although passed into effect by a Labour government. It was a bipartisan policy which provided that industry in general would contribute to a redundancy fund, and those employers who felt it necessary to declare workers redundant would be able to withdraw from that fund.
At the time when this measure was introduced, the pay-back was 75 per cent. The pay-back has been consistently reduced: from 75 per cent. at the beginning to 50 per cent. in 1969, 41 per cent. in 1977 —it is not only Conservative governments which have reduced the pay-back—35 per cent. in 1985, and, as we know, in 1986 it was abolished altogether for all firms employing more than 10 people. We have never been given a serious answer to the question of why this pay-back has been first reduced, then almost wholly abolished and finally even that small remaining amount of pay-back given to firms employing fewer than 10 people is about to be scrapped.
This provision in the Bill was not even mentioned at Second Reading in this Chamber when the Bill was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. It was not explained in any way by the Secretary of State, as recorded in Hansard of 11th January 1989 at col. 861. He merely told the other place that the Government were doing it. I may have missed the passage somewhere, and if I have it is because it is a very small entry, but so far as I know there is nothing in the authoritative tome Burdens on Business that prepares us for it at all. Until this moment the only reason why we have any animation of the Government's ideas is because during the Committee stage in the other place the Member for Ludlow tabled an amendment (which we might have put forward in this Chamber if we had thought about it) in which he tried to continue this redundancy payment clawback on a small scale for two years.
The reason he gave was to me the perfectly acceptable one that the Government had said when they retained it in 1986 that they did so because

843
small businessmen, as the noble Lord said, might very well be declaring people redundant in a near insolvency situation. In fact he was quite frankly particularly representing farmers and the National Farmers' Union, which had made special representations on this matter because it felt that in the current state of the agricultural industry many farmers might find it necessary to declare workers redundant—small farmers who might come well within the bounds of the 10 worker criterion and who might require the quite small but still significant assistance from the redundancy payments measure.
It is interesting that the Minister of State, Mr. Cope, admitted that the payment was retained in 1986 for those reasons. He admitted that the conditions under which it was retained still applied and that the Government had had representations from the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. Yet he said that he could do nothing.
At this point it is worth quoting his remarks. He said that the arguments about small firms—those which had been placed before us—with which he sympathised, centred on whether we should still be involved in the social engineering from which the practice of subsidising solvent employers arose 20 or more years ago. Of course. The explanation followed. He said that that time had passed and we should close that chapter in our financial history. In the end there is in fact no reason at all.
Why help only the insolvent, near bankrupt and bankrupt employer? Why should the employer be driven into bankruptcy to claim from the redundancy fund? In fact, why not let this last remaining piece of bipartisanship stay where it is for a few more years in order to help some people who are stuck in a redundancy situation? I support the motion.
Lord Strathclyde: I appreciate the aim of noble Lords who oppose the Question, That this clause stand part. I can see why they regard what we are doing away with and creating as a financial burden on small firms. However, I believe that that is based on a misconception. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked for a justification. I sincerely hope that I shall be able to give him one.
As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, pointed out the rebate was done away with in 1986 for all employers except the smallest (those with less than 10 employees). The reason was that, in our view, the rebate amounted to a subsidy for the making of redundancies which we felt was no longer appropriate in current labour market conditions.
At that time we made an exception for small firms, feeling that some relief might be helpful; however, I would stress that the sums of money at stake are relatively small. As I have already said, the rebate payable at the moment on an average statutory payment is of the order of £490. I doubt whether such an amount is of more than marginal significance to any small company.
However, the point that I particularly wish to impress on the Committee is that there already
844
exists within the legislation provision for redundant employees to be paid directly by the department where the employer is unable for any reason to make the payments to which the workers are entitled under the Act. If an employer disappears, dies or has gone insolvent, on the other hand—and perhaps this is the most relevant situation—if the employer is still trading but has serious cash flow problems, then the payments can be made direct from the Redundancy Fund.
In 1988–89 —I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, did not have these figuresߞ24,500 such direct payments were made, at a cost of £32 million, not merely to small employers but right across the board. I feel that this procedure is the right way to deal with the problem to which I presume this argument is directed.
I trust that I have said enough to persuade the Committee that the clause should be allowed to go through.
Lord Rochester: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for supporting me in persuading the Minister to explain the reason why the Government have included this clause in the Bill. I am not altogether satisfied with the explanation that he has given, relying as it does so much simply on the sums of money involved. However, we have more important clauses in the Bill to discuss. Having succeeded at least in getting the Minister to offer some explanation as to the reasons for including this clause in the Bill, I do not now propose to pursue the matter further.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Pre-hearing review of proceedings before industrial tribunal]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 14, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert ("by the tribunal itself.").
The noble Baroness said: The object of Clause 18 is to provide for pre-hearing reviews of industrial tribunal cases in place of the present pre-hearing assessments. At present, pre-hearing assessments are comparatively rare but when they take place it is possible for tribunals to give a costs warning to the applicant. No doubt the reasons why they are not widely used is that, generally speaking, they seem to have served little purpose.
The tribunal is very reluctant to give a costs warning after a brief hearing where arguments are put without hearing any evidence. ACAS has expressed concern about how far the proposed system of pre-hearing reviews would resolve the problems said to arise with pre-hearing assessments. Obviously the Government want to weed out cases that they think should not go to ITs at all. However, if the use of pre-hearing reviews spreads, it could seriously impede the conciliation process generally and lead to a two-tier IT system. Moreover, it is by no means unusual even now for cases regarded as non-starters at pre-hearing assessments to go on to

845
a full IT hearing and to be won. However, what is even worse is that, as the Bill stands, it makes provision for the pre-hearing review to be conducted,
"by such a person as may be determined".
In other words, it is by a single individual, usually the chairman sitting alone.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that if there are to be pre-hearing reviews they should be conducted by the tribunal. It is not satisfactory that such a hearing should be left to a single individual, no matter how highly qualified. As it stands, the clause would appear to give industrial tribunal chairmen sitting alone the powers to determine jurisdictional questions. These issues are often of considerable importance to employees because they affect the scope of the protection offered by employment law. The proposal to eliminate the two industrial tribunal side members from pre-hearing reviews could also seriously undermine the tripartite nature of the IT system.
The Law Society and the TUC have serious doubts about it. The Law Society states:
"There will be few cases where it could be appropriate for a Chairman sitting alone to determine questions on jurisdiction, the burden placed on Chairmen being too great, and therefore cases where jurisdictional questions arise should continue to be dealt with by the full Tribunal sitting to resolve them at the outset, as is presently the practice so that the views of the lay members may be given".
These are serious considerations put forward by people who have a close knowledge of the present system. On those grounds I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Rochester: I should like briefly to support the noble Baroness. In addition, it may be worth adding that the British Institute of Management feels that it would be better if the present system of informal discussions were retained—those informal discussions which often now take place before a tribunal goes ahead—rather than have the formalised structure set out in the Bill.
However, if we are to have an institutionalised pre-hearing review, then I agree with the noble Baroness that it should be undertaken by an appropriate body. That body should be the tribunal.
Lord Strathclyde: Let me remind the Committee of the purpose of this clause. It enables the Secretary of State to give industrial tribunal chairmen, or, if appropriate, a full tribunal, the power to conduct a prehearing review of a case and to require a party to pay a deposit of up to£.150 as a condition of proceeding further with or defending the application. We intend that this new power should be used only where the case is thought to have little prospect of success or to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable. When the unfair dismissal provisions were orginally introduced the expectation was that industrial tribunals would provide a cheap, speedy and informal means of resolving certain disputes in the employment field. The tribunals have lived up to those expectations and provide a highly effective and speedy means of resolving a whole range of employment issues.
846
The proposals in the Bill are intended to make the tribunal procedure even more streamlined than it already is, by tackling directly the problem of ill-founded cases. By introducing a method of weeding out the small number of cases where there is an abuse of the system, we shall be concentrating resources more directly on the genuine cases.
The Opposition's amendment would restrict the new regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State. He would be unable to provide for the new pre-hearing reviews to be carried out by a tribunal chairman sitting alone. PHRs and the making of a deposit order could therefore only be carried out by a full tribunal.
The amendment would therefore frustrate to a substantial extent the Government's intention of ensuring that there are effective powers to deal with the problem of ill-founded cases. These proposals were the subject of a consultation exercise last year and a wide number of organisations responded with their views. I will not deny that there were some dissenting voices among those who commented. Nevertheless, there was sufficient general support for the idea for us to decide to proceed with implementing it.
The main purpose of the PHR will be to clarify the issues in dispute and to identify cases which seem unlikely to succeed. Such issues do not normally require the practical expertise of the lay members of industrial tribunals and can be dealt with more speedily and effectively by chairmen sitting alone.
Nevertheless, I must emphasise that we recognise that in some exceptional cases—perhaps where the issues involved are particularly complex or contentious—it may be appropriate for a full tribunal to conduct the PHR; and we have provided for that possibility in new paragraph lA(1)(a)(ii) of Clause 18.
The whole point of this clause is to make life easier for the industrial tribunal in dealing with genuine cases where there has been a problem. The amendment does nothing to help that cause. I therefore hope very much that noble Lords opposite will think further about the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the Minister sits down, will he elaborate on one very important matter? The clause makes provision whereby regulations allow for more important cases to go to the full tribunal. Is it envisaged that the regulations would place among those more important cases those in which there is a jurisdictional issue, about which my noble friend Lady Turner spoke?
This matter has disturbed a large number of people. Jurisdictional issues include the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the tribunal in cases of industrial conflict, lock-outs, industrial action and a large number of other matters. It is the view of many people that those issues should certainly be heard by the tribunal. It would be quite wrong for the chairman to hear those on his own. Is the Minister prepared to say anything about those matters being put at least to the full tribunal?
Lord Meston: Before the Minister replies, is it intended that there should be a right of appeal from the single chairman to the full tribunal? In important matters such as jurisdiction cases, a chairman may decide that an application is out of time and that time should not be extended. In my view, there should be a right of appeal to the full tribunal.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked about the jurisdiction aspect of the tribunal. It will be up to the chairman of the tribunal to decide where he has jurisdiction and when a full tribunal should be asked to look at a case. On the point about appeal, yes, in all cases there will be methods of appealing against any decision.
Lord McCarthy: Will the Minister tell us what he means by methods of appeal? How do appellants appeal? Do they go to the tribunal? Do they go to the EAT: What do they do?
Lord Strathclyde: I shall have to look into the methods of appeal and let the noble Lord know.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not very happy with the Minister's response. I thought that we had made a fairly strong case on this side of the Chamber. We contend that it is unfair to an individual applicant, in a situation where he may feel that he had a good case, simply to be subject to the decision of a chairman sitting alone. As has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords on this side of the Committee, there is the major question of jurisdiction, which has already been raised by the Law Society. With respect, I do not believe that the Minister answered that satisfactorily at all.
Concerning appeals, I do not know what a method of appeal is. What is a method of appeal? I know of rights of appeal. But how do methods of appeal come into this legislation? I believe the Government are over-reacting to what they believe to have been a stream of ill-founded cases. My experience, including some experience in this area as a union official, is that, generally speaking, unions are loath to take cases on behalf of members unless they feel such cases are well founded. For an individual, going to a tribunal is quite a daunting experience. Only the most highly motivated individual is likely to go to a tribunal without backing from some quarter, either from his own resources or from a union. It is a myth to maintain, as the Government do, that there seem to be so many ill-founded cases that we have to introduce this new system to streamline the operation of the legislation. In order to do that we have to give one individual, the chairman, powers to make these decisions at pre-hearing reviews.
I do not intend to press the amendment this evening. We shall however think carefully about this. I feel there is scope for further amendments on Report. Having made those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 40.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, leave out lines 18 to 35.
The noble Lord said: The requirement that parties wishing to continue to participate in industrial tribunal proceedings after a pre-hearing review should pay a deposit, as proposed in the clause, raises a major matter of principle. The right of free access to industrial tribunals has long been regarded as an essential element in the fairness of the system. Until now no one has been able to claim that lack of money imposed a check on the search for justice. Once the principle is breached, the amount charged is open to variation and to accusations of political motivation, which may reduce respect for the system's impartiality.
It is noteworthy that the British Institute of Management and the Engineering Employers' Federation have both expressed reservations about the imposition of a deposit of up to £150 as proposed in the clause. It is true that in its submission the Institute of Personnel Management was concerned about the amount of time and money which could be spent by employers in dealing with frivolous cases. But the institute saw an improvement in the uniformity, the quality and the effectiveness of pre-hearing procedures and remedy, rather than the premature authorisation of orders requiring payment of a deposit.
Once a revision of those procedures has taken place it will be time enough to consider deposits of much less than £150, I should have thought, to be paid by applicants wishing to proceed against the advice of those conducting the preliminary hearing or by those who, perhaps at the last minute, withdraw or fail to appear within, say, 48 hours of a hearing. That is very far from what is proposed in subsections (2) and (3). And that is why I suggest to the Committee that those subsections should be left out of the Bill. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It seems right and sensible to us that we should support the noble Lord's amendment and not move our separate Amendment No. 40. It is clear that the amendments concentrate upon the same matter. It is perhaps the meanest part of a mean Bill to suggest that an applicant to an industrial tribunal should contribute to alleviating the burdens on business. The chairman, even when sitting alone, can decide that the applicant should pay 150 deposit as his entrance fee to the tribunal of justice. It is an ignoble and petty proposal. As the noble Lord has said, it will be a boomerang provision because it will bring the tribunals into disrepute.
What are the figures? The Minister may produce some more, but the only evidence that we have concerning the tribunals appears in the Employment Gazette. The tribunals have been able to impose costs since 1980 whenever there is a case they deem frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable. There are pre-hearing assessments to warn people that they may do so. It was interesting to hear the Minister on the amendment moved by my noble friend speak of the target. He spoke of cases that were vexatious,

849
frivolous or had little chance of success. So the extra that the Government want to get at are those cases that have little chance of success and that are not vexatious, frivolous or unreasonable.
As has been said, there are already the pre-hearing assessments. In 1986ߝ87 only 294 cases are on record in which costs were ultimately pronounced out of 39,000 complaints. In 1987–88 costs were awarded in only 205 cases out of 34,000 complaints. In 1987–88 there were 781 pre-hearing assessments of which only 341 were warned that they might risk a costs award and some of which, a handful it is true, nevertheless went on ultimately to success.
An even more interesting figure is how the pre-hearing assessments come about. They can be brought about either by the demand of a party to the case or by the chairman of the tribunal. The number of cases in which the chairman decided tribunals ought to demand a pre-hearing assessment was only 281. Out of thousands of cases these are significant indicators. They are not proof. We have no figures sufficient for that. They are indicators that the picture of industrial tribunals clogged up by unreasonable claims brought by unprincipled people against burdened employers is a fantasy. It is a fantasy as anyone will say who knows anything about industrial tribunals. It is not true. So there is no need whatever for this type of clause.
There may be a need, as the noble Lord and the Minister have said, to consider the pre-hearing assessment arrangements and perhaps to improve them. But access to the tribunal on a deposit would seem to breach a golden principle. It is a principle which the Government have pronounced in all other areas. What did they do in respect of the Employment Act 1988? In a situation where there was little proof that union members had been debarred from going to the High Court in cases against their union, they nevertheless insisted on having a clause in the Bill—which we did not resist although we believed it to be unnecessary—providing that members should have access to the court no matter what the union rules. The Government did so because access to the courts was their principle.
When a multinational corporation goes to the High Court with a bad case but not one which can be struck out in accordance with normal rules—that is to say, because it is frivolous, vexatious or discloses no reasonable cause of action (which is exactly the same as the present tribunal situation)—judges are rightly reluctant to strike out causes of action because the view is that the person or company is entitled to the day in court. There must be a good argument for striking out and in any event those involved would go to the Court of Appeal.
Is it proposed that a High Court judge should have the power to impose a monetary condition upon the large company which appears with a case which is poor but not frivolous? If not, why not? As the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls has made clear, there are problems in parts of the High Court and the Court of Appeal where it is difficult to deal
850
with a large number of cases at a proper rate. Are there to be monetary deposits as a condition to litigate? Once that appears in the tribunal is it to spread, and if not why not?
We are now talking about cases which the Government have chosen to target for the imposition of a deposit. Let us remember that it was only because of the outcry that they were prevented from imposing a fee. Their original proposal was to impose a fee of £25. Of the bodies which responded the only ones which agreed to a deposit of £150 were those which did not like the fee. They wanted a deposit which the man or woman could recover. Therefore, the Government have already put forward a preposterous proposal and now they have put forward a proposal only minutely less than preposterous.
Further, the Committee should not forget that under the clause the Minister can vary the amount. It will not remain at £150 for ever. A survey reported in the Guardian in August showed that 75 per cent. of claimants involved in unfair dismissal cases in industrial tribunals are still unemployed. It does not mean that they will not obtain another job, but that is the position. It is from them that this special deposit is required in order to go to a tribunal of justice.
Were the issue not about employment law the Committee would throw out the proposal without a moment's hesitation. Were it about the ordinary courts of justice no one would consider it. But it is about industrial tribunals and employment law and it appears that we can take liberties with principle. I suggest that the Committee supports the comments of the noble Viscount on this sensitive and important matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to see the Bill remain as it stands. My experience in industrial tribunals shows that at a pre-hearing assessment the person involved is warned that if he loses the case costs will be awarded against him. When costs are implemented after the case has been fully heard he then explains that he is living on unemployment benefit and can pay nothing. It means that in the end the costs do not exist because in many cases it is impossible to collect the money.
Yet employers may have sat through a case for many days, perhaps weeks. Often they have taken many members of staff to sit in court and present their case which, as a result of the pre-hearing assessment, was determined not to be sound. I do not comment upon the proposed figure, but it is right that there should be some way of making people prove the seriousness in advance of bringing the case after a pre-hearing assessment has decided that there is no good reason.
I must mention a particular case in principle because I cannot go into details at this stage. I am referring to the case of someone who has brought 60 to 70 such cases. At a public hearing I said, "According to this documentation you have brought your case 16 or 17 times?". The reply was, "No, many more". I said, "How many times?". The answer was, "Sixty to 70 times against employers from all over the country". It is a waste of time to have people

851
sitting in court on each occasion re-justifying the decision that the case was not a fair case to bring.
I ask the noble Lord opposite whether there is a way in which people can be ruled out as being vexatious. Chairmen of tribunals have said that it is impossible, yet everyone has said that an ordinary legal case can be classified as being vexatious and therefore not heard. I shall be interested to hear the answer because the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, implied that there is already provision to deal with vexatious litigants. I should like to know more because at tribunals I have been informed that there is no such power. I believe that the principle behind the clause is good.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Baroness sits down I must apologise because I did not hear everything she said. However, I believe that she asked me whether the tribunal has equivalent powers to those of the High Court to strike out a case. Without going to the books I apprehend that its power is not equivalent to that of the High Court. However, it would be another matter if we were discussing a proposal concerning the tribunal's powers in respect of vexatious and frivolous cases and striking out. I should willingly join her in such discussions, but it is a different position from that of imposing a deposit of money on an unemployed person as a right to go to a tribunal.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The case I am making is that at the moment this appears to be the only type of power capable of dealing with such cases. I have asked a number of Members of the Committee who I thought would know the answer. They have told me that they believe there to be no parallel between the tribunal and the court of law. I should be interested to hear whether anyone in the Committee knows whether there is such a parallel.
Lord Meston: The noble Baroness is right; the tribunal has no power equivalent to that of the High Court to declare someone a vexatious litigant. I have had experience of people who have brought to tribunals numerous claims and who cannot be stopped, however vexatious. She is right in saying that there is a problem. Perhaps there should be an equivalent power enabling the tribunal to allow such people to continue only with leave. That may be a solution but it is only part of the solution to the problem. The fact that there is a problem is beyond doubt and I support the amendment.
It is a sad fact that a large number of applications to industrial tribunals fail completely. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, the other side of the coin is that a number of cases which appear to be non-starters succeed triumphantly. It is a question of balance, of making sure that the cases with merit go ahead and those with none are stopped painlessly, quickly and with the minimum of expense.
I have had to sit through an enormous number of hearings of hopeless, or near hopeless, applications to industrial tribunals. They are often conducted by unrepresented, angry and determined litigants. "Angry" and "determined" are only two adjectives;
852
sometimes they are verbose, obsessive and have elaborate conspiracy theories and cannot be controlled. Cases of discrimination are particularly prone to that. They can be used by people who are still employed, and who have no complaint of unfair dismissal, as an opportunity publicly to air their grievances which turn out to have nothing to do with racial or sexual discrimination.
I have often tried to think of a better sifting and screening procedure but one must look at the issue in perspective. Many cases do not reach hearings but are settled by conciliation through ACAS. The stronger cases have the help of the unions or bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Free Representation Unit. However, there is still a hard core of cases—and this is the problem which must be addressed—where applicants are not attracted by conciliation. They want their day in court before the tribunal. Those are people with weak cases whose weaknesses they will not acknowledge. They do not have the help of their union because the union has better things to do with its time and resources and they do not have the support of responsible bodies like the Commission for Racial Equality, which equally is not tempted to part with its limited resources to back weak cases.
Another source of the problem is this. However weak or strong a case, no applicant can have legal aid. In other areas of the law and litigation, legal aid is a valuable way of sifting out cases without merit. Legal aid will help an applicant identify and articulate his best points, get rid of his worst points and settle. This is now a very sophisticated area of the law, like it or not. However with no lawyer to guide or give unpalatable advice that it is pointless to go on, these people go on and on and on. Those are the problems. It is no kindness to applicants with hopeless cases to allow them to go on. As has been said, it is expensive and time-consuming for the respondent. Frankly, racial discrimination is wicked but it is also hurtful and unfair to people who are unjustly accused of racial discrimination. I have seen people who are very hurt to be accused publicly of racial discrimination. Of course, those cases hold up the cases which have merit. Those are the problems.
What are the remedies? At present we have this optional pre-hearing assessment system and a power to give costs warnings. However, it is a fact that the pre-hearing assessment is seldom used and cost warnings are not always given. When they are given they do not deter the most determined applicant who has little to lose. However, I suggest that Clause 18 is not an answer. A maximum deposit of £150 will not deter. First, that is a relatively small amount; secondly, it is a maximum amount and there will have to be exceptions for those on social security or unemployment benefit; and, thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned a few moments ago, at that stage the tribunal will only have limited information and so cannot make a proper assessment.
Therefore, I suggest that the Government should look again at this clause and that the answer is not to require that people show money. They should show merit. The real answer is to make more and better use of the pre-hearing assessment and cost warnings.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, talked about justice. In this clause there is no sense of perverting justice in any shape or form. It is no good the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn, trying to pretend that there is because that is not so.
Perhaps I may explain. This amendment would frustrate our intention of giving tribunals stronger powers to deal with the problem of ill-founded cases. Since it substitutes no alternative proposal tribunals would be left with their existing powers to issue a costs warning where they believed that a case had little prospect of success or was frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes explained exactly what is wrong with the present system.
We made quite clear in our consultation exercise last year that the PHA and costs warning procedure had not worked well and needed to be replaced. For a start, the award of costs can obviously only be made after the hearing once the unnecessary expense has been incurred; and frequently the award of costs is ineffective because the employee does not have the resources to meet the bill. The new power to order a deposit will act as a deterrent to those bringing ill-founded cases before the case reaches a full hearing.
I really cannot see what are the objections to our proposal to enable tribunals to order deposits; and I must emphasise that they are deposits only. A deposit order will only be an option where a case appears at the pre-hearing stage to have little prospect of success or is thought to be frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable; and where a deposit is ordered it will be left to the discretion of the tribunal chairman carrying out the pre-hearing review to determine the exact level of deposit. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, made the point that £150 is a maximum. In some cases the deposit may be as low as £5 where that is considered appropriate.
Tribunals will be able to order either party to pay a deposit, so the new power will therefore apply to both employers and employees; and it is our intention that a deposit will only be forfeited if the person required to pay it loses the case and has an order for costs made against him. In other words, he will only forfeit the deposit where the tribunal carrying out the full hearing considers that the case was indeed frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable. In such cases the deposit will be paid to the other party in part settlement of the costs. In all other circumstances the deposit will be returned at the conclusion of the case to the person who paid it. I really do not see what the Opposition finds so objectionable about this proposal.
I have been asked what evidence there is that the problem of ill-founded cases exists and requires treatment. We made quite clear in the consultation document that the pre-hearing assessment procedure was not working as well as expected. The figures for the number of PHAs carried out in 1987–88 show a further decline. Under the new streamlined procedure chairmen will normally carry out pre-hearing reviews sitting alone without the lay
854
members and this will enable PHRs to be carried out more swiftly than before. In absolute terms the number of ill-founded cases is not large; but employers regularly complain about the cost and management effort involved in defending such cases and our proposals address that problem directly.
The noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Rochester, questioned the degree of support for our proposals, particularly among employers. It is accurate to say that there were some dissenting voices among those who responded to our consultation exercise on this subject last year. That is hardly surprising, and indeed it might be rather worrying if that were not the case. But there was sufficient general support for our proposals to enable us to proceed with implementation.
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote some examples. The CBI welcomed,
"the broad thrust of the proposals set out in the consultation paper on industrial tribunals".
The Institute of Personnel Management saw the proposals as,
"a definite move in the right direction,"
and supported them all broadly. There was also support from the Institute of Directors, the National Chamber of Trade, the Association of Independent Businesses and the British Retailers Association, among others.
I reject entirely the argument that this proposal is a tax on justice. Surely the noble Lords on the Opposition Benches recognise that time and money spent defending and hearing ill-founded cases is a drain not only on employers' resources but also on the public purse. It is also ultimately unfair to those who wish to bring genuine cases to the tribunal. As things stand at present, an employee rarely has anything to lose by making a complaint to the tribunal and we are not changing that state of affairs. Our proposals simply aim to weed out unreasonable cases by making people think twice before they pursue them. By acting on the small number of people who abuse the system we shall ensure that it can work more effectively for the majority whose complaints are genuine.
Let me remind the Committee again that we do not expect there to be a pre-hearing review of every single case; nor do we expect a deposit to be ordered in every case which is the subject of a pre-hearing review. Furthermore, in ordering the deposit the tribunal chairman will have total discretion to set it at a level which he believes to be appropriate for that case.
Those are the fundamental facts of the case. It has nothing to do with perverting justice and it is nothing for any genuine applicant to be worried about. I do not see what the Opposition finds so objectionable about this proposal and I very much hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rochester: I shall try not to detain the Committee unduly because I am conscious that we have now reached the dinner hour. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, who denied that many

855
unreasonable claims were being brought to industrial tribunals and who supported me in saying that, in his view, there was no justification for requiring people—some of them very poor—to pay deposits. The amount now contemplated is not the fee of £25 which was originally considered but a deposit of up to £150.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was concerned about the number of vexatious claims which could be brought. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Meston, with all his current experience of these tribunals, for saying that what is needed are adequate ways of dealing with frivolous claims rather than introducing the concept of paying a deposit. I was particularly interested in my noble friend's point concerning legal aid as being a good way of eliminating unreasonable claims.
The noble Lord, Lord Stratchlyde, said, among other things, that in appropriate cases deposits would be returned to the claimants. Perhaps he would be good enough to answer a question on that point. Where deposits are returned to claimants is it the Government's intention that the claimants should receive interest on those payments, given the high rates of interest which now obtain? The noble Lord may need guidance on that point.
In my initial speech I did my best to anticipate most of the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his concluding remarks; but perhaps he is now in a position to answer my question.
Lord Strathclyde: I understand there are no proposals at the moment to pay interest on the deposit. Furthermore, I understand that only a relatively short space of time of about three months is involved. I have not been able to work out the interest that would be due on £150, but perhaps I can put the argument this way. If someone is willing to put down that sort of deposit in the first place I am sure he would not mind forfeiting what must be a relatively small amount of money over three months.
Lord Rochester: I am not very convinced by that answer. My understanding is that more than a few months can elapse in cases going before a tribunal and I am not at all happy that no undertaking can be given that interest will be paid. There are a number of other points on which I am not satisfied, as must be plain to the Committee. In the circumstances, a good way of introducing the dinner break would be for me to divide the Committee.
7.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 67.

DIVISION NO.4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L

Barnett, L.

Blease, L.

David, B.

856

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Galpern, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

White, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Meston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Barber, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brookes, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Byron, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Radnor, E.

Craigavon, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Crathorne, L.

Reay, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Seebohm, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Teviot, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Greenway, L.

Ullswater, V.

Gridley, L.

Vinson, L.

Haig, E.

Westbury, L.

Harvington, L.

Wise, L.

Headfort, M.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.52 p.m.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill begin again at 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Licensing and Clubs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Licensing and Clubs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th July 1989, be approved. The order is short, but it contains important changes, one of which is designed to reduce the availability of off-sales alcohol late at night. This is a most serious matter in Northern Ireland, where there is a great deal of concern about the abysmal behaviour of many who drink in public in the later hours. I hope that your Lordships will support these changes.
The guts of this order are to be found in Articles 3 to 6, and I shall come to those soon. First, I shall briefly explain each article in sequence. Article 3 concerns ancillary businesses on licensed premises. The present law restricts public houses and off-licences to the business authorised by the licence, which is the sale of alcohol. However, it also allows them to sell cigarettes, crisps, nuts and other items which go naturally with selling alcohol. Whilst the Government do not currently intend to make any changes to the statutory lists, it seems more than strange that such changes can only be made by primary legislation. This article therefore simply gives a power allowing any future changes to be made by regulations.
Article 4 is wholly beneficial. It provides for extension licences and special authorisations when New Year's Eve falls on a Sunday. This occurs on average once every seven years, and next New Year's Eve will be one of those occasions. The present law prevents alcohol being sold in licensed premises or registered clubs after 10 o'clock on Sunday. The Government have been persuaded by representations received that the special nature of New Year's Eve merits a modest relaxation of the law. The effect of the article therefore will be to enable hotels, restaurants, and pubs of an approved standard, as well as registered clubs, to sell drink beyond the normal time of 10 in the evening on that particular Sunday, up to one o'clock in the morning on the Monday, provided—and this is an important safeguard—they obtain the requisite licence or authorisation.
I turn now to Article 5 which introduces a ban on the sale of alcohol from all off-sales outlets after 9 p.m. It is the most important part of the order, and is really an extension of provisions in the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which banned sales from freestanding off-licences after 9 p.m. The ban did not extend to off-sales from pubs or the off-sales outlets attached to them, which were able to continue with off-sales to 11 p.m.
That restriction was aimed at reducing the alcohol available to those persons, mainly in the younger age group, who persist in drinking in public and generally behaving in a most offensive way. It was apparent that these people had been buying their drink mainly from the freestanding off-licensed premises. The 1987 change helped to alleviate the problem but there remained substantial concern that futher restriction was needed, since they were turning to the other outlets for their drink.
In passing, may I commend the no alcohol pubs. Armagh, Ballymena and more recently Dungannon, have introduced these to encourage young people away from an alcohol related environment. There was another factor to be considered. The 1987 ban affected the viability of some of the off-sales shops, who claimed that the loss of two hours' trading was having a disproportionate effect on their business. Following a review of the position in the light of various representations received, the Government were persuaded that some of these shops were indeed trading at a disadvantage.
In order to meet all these concerns the Government decided that the most sensible answer was to put a ban on all off-sales after 9 p.m., including those from the off-sales outlets attached to pubs. That is the purpose of this article, which also bans off-sales over the bar in pubs. Article 6 deals with offences involving minors. I know your Lordships are concerned, as I am, about under-age drinking. I have already mentioned the encouraging move towards no alcohol pubs. However, we still have to keep a tight rein on licensing offences involving minors. This article creates a new ground of defence for a person charged with selling alcohol to a minor, requiring him to prove that he had used all due diligence to prevent the offence from ocurring. The same defence will apply to a person charged with allowing a minor in the bar area of a pub, or in an off-licence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and her group, in their report on young people and alcohol, recommended that the onus in these circumstances should be placed firmly on the licensee. I agree wholeheartedly, but believe that we must get the balance right. On the one hand, licensees must know their responsibilities. On the other, we must have a sound defence for the conscientious licensee who makes a genuine mistake. I believe that the new defence, which is identical to comparable ones in the rest of the United Kingdom, strikes a sensible balance. The next few minutes will show whether I have gone into sufficient detail in this order. As usual I shall be delighted to answer such questions as your Lordships may have. In the meantime I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 25th July be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
8 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the provisions of this short but important order affecting the licensing laws of Northern Ireland. It seems that the order can be viewed as the third package of the recent reform of the licensing Acts in Northern Ireland, the other two having been introduced in 1987.
I shall be brief and merely comment on three of the provisions of the order. First, and for the reasons given by the Minister, I welcome the wording of the defence that will be made available to a licensee in a prosecution brought against him in respect of the sale to a minor of intoxicants on licensed premises. That will bring the law in Northern Ireland on this matter into line with the law not only of England

859
and Wales, but also of Scotland which, I believe, first introduced this defence as long ago as 1976.
I myself have no brief for harmonisation unless there is a real need for it. However, I am sure that everyone will agree that the terms of the new defence contained in Article 6 should be made available in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, I wish to raise a small point about Article 8(5). I understand and fully agree with the reason for paragraph (5) which extends the definition of the word "resident" to include a guest who receives overnight accommodation in a public house. According to the wording of the paragraph, a resident means inter alia a person who,
"has in writing engaged a room for the succeeding night".
I am not aware that this phrase has been construed by the courts. Neither am I aware that there is a precedent for this phrase in other legislation. However, I may well be wrong on that point. I wonder whether the phrase should have been more closely defined. I am a little worried that the provision as worded could raise problems. For example, would a written record of a telephone booking amount to a written engagement by the guest? I am not so sure that it would. When does the written document become an engagement? If there is a written record but it is unsigned by the guest or the traveller, does that amount to an engagement? I raise those two questions as evidence that there could be problems with the wording of the paragraph.
Thirdly, I want to refer to Article 3. As the Minister has explained, this article empowers the department by regulations, subject to affirmative resolution, to modify the list of the ancillary businesses which may lawfully be carried on in licensed premises. Until I had read the article I had not appreciated that an Order in Council could provide a safe legal route for modifying the scope of primary legislation in respect of a specific matter which is itself covered in primary legislation. I am not an expert in this field and it is with considerable diffidence that I refer to this point of constitutional propriety. Perhaps the noble Lord can confirm to me, if not tonight then in writing, that there is no possible conflict between Article 3 of the order and the primary legislation contained in Section 28(7) of the Licensing Act 1971. If the noble Lord confirms that it is legitimate to use the Order in Council to authorise a way around a specific provision contained in primary legislation, that would be a further cause of concern about the government of Northern Ireland by Orders in Council.
My comments may not be of much help to the Minister. I shall follow his reply with interest and, subject thereto, we support the order.
Lord Blease: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has as usual dealt thoroughly and ably with the contents of this amending order. I fully support the views he has expressed from the Opposition Front Bench. I welcome the Minister's statement of concern about under-age drinking in Northern Ireland. It is worth noting that in June the Minister's own department issued a report of a
860
survey that indicated that there are fewer under-age drinkers in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, though I do not mean to express that we are in a better position in Northern Ireland in regard to under-age drinking. Indeed the noble Lord has indicated that there is still great concern in Northern Ireland and that efforts are being made to curtail that sad habit.
Can the Minister explain the proposed extension of the licence to registered clubs, hotels and public houses for New Year's Eve when it falls on a Sunday? He has indicated that on average this occurs once in seven years. As I understand it, the extension applies only to the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises. The extension is limited to three hours, until 1 a.m. on Monday, 1st January. Therefore, purchases of alcohol should cease at 1 a.m. Does this mean that public houses will continue to have the additional 30 minutes for what is commonly known as the clearing up period during which barmen can do their work about the premises and whatever alcohol has been bought can be consumed? It is important clearly to understand the closing hours from the point of view of enforcing the legislation. It has been a contentious point for many years.
This is the first occasion in the House on which I have addressed the noble Lord since his appointment as a Northern Ireland Minister of State. We all recognise that ministerial responsibilities in Northern Ireland are not the easiest of government portfolios. The holder of any Northern Ireland ministerial position is deserving of every possible understanding and goodwill. I wish to add my good wishes to those already expressed to the Minister from all sides of the House and also to indicate my support for all earnest efforts to promote peace and prosperity for the people in Northern Ireland. I support the order.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that this is a genuinely beneficial and helpful order. Article 8(5) almost exactly duplicates Section 84(1) of the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 1971, the only difference being the reference to cover pubs which of course can, since the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, provide accommodation. Therefore, it has quite a long precedent. The noble Lord asked whether the way one deals with a telephone call and so on has ever been tested in the courts. I do not know but I anticipate—this is purely an off-the-cuff statement—that the proof of the pudding, so to speak, would be in the signing of the residents' book when one gets the key of one's room. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asked about Article 3. I too find this process rather confusing. I am advised that, so far as concerns Northern Ireland, and for all I know more generally, Orders in Council are primary legislation, and so it is "cricket", so to speak, to amend existing primary legislation by new primary legislation. That is what we are doing throughout the order.
I appreciate that that brings a rather wider and very much larger subject into the debate. The noble

861
Lord may have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has a Starred Question down for answer on Wednesday next week which will cover that precise point. With the agreement of the noble Lord, we can perhaps develop the thinking then.
Why have we changed the defences for offences relating to minors? As I said earlier, that stems from a recommendation made by the group chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. As the law stands, it is too easy for a licensee to claim that he did not know the age of a customer, and all too difficult for the prosecution to prove otherwise. The onus will now shift to the licensee to either persuade the court that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under 18 or that he exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence. He might do the latter by, for example, asking the customer for proof of his age or by making sure that his staff are fully conversant with the law in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, whom I am delighted to welcome back to our debates—this is the second debate that I have had the honour of handling from the Dispatch Box—asked about the record of the consumption of alcohol by minors and what the department was doing about that. As he said, a recent DHSS report on drinking among school children showed that a large proportion of young people—66 per cent. of boys and 80 per cent.of girls—either do not drink or do so only a few times a year. However, a small proportion drink frequently and consume significant amounts of alcohol. Indeed, the drinking habits of young people seem to mirror the pattern of adult drinking in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that leaves a certain amount to be desired. That confirms that the attitudes of young people to the use of alcohol are clearly influenced by the example set by parents in particular and by adults in general.
For that reason, the department is convinced that, while it is important to provide health education for young people on all aspects of alcohol, it would be wrong to concentrate solely on that group. A health education promotion awareness campaign aimed at all groups in society is required and the department intends that the issue of its health promotion strategy for the prevention of alcohol misuse in Northern Ireland should be the first step in that direction. The new Northern Ireland health promotion unit has been asked to develop a health education programme for the whole community as a matter of urgency.
I am glad to say that the Department of Education is supporting and encouraging a broad and balanced health education programme in schools. Programmes of study in the compulsory and contributory subjects in the new school curriculum will include guidance on alcohol and alcohol misuse. Schools will be expected to include activities which develop healthy lifestyles and increase pupils' understanding and awareness of the social and physical hazards associated with alcohol misuse. The emphasis in all of that work will be on preventive measures.
Because of the apparent flouting of the law by some young people who claim that they are able to drink in pubs and clubs and buy alcohol from
862
off-licences, the RUC is reviewing the present handling of under-age drinking and associated offences. It is proposed to initiate a number of measures to ensure a standard and effective approach to the problem throughout the force. These will include close monitoring by sub-divisional commanders of local stations of all incidents of under-age drinking and associated offences, and the submission of regular returns to RUC headquarters. That will be supported by a publicity campaign to help raise the general level of public awareness of the problem and advise parents, those in the drinks trade and those at risk of offending that existing laws will be rigorously enforced.
This is a genuine problem in Northern Ireland, and in my view the order will help to crack it. With those words, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.16 to 8.50 p.m.]

Employment Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Dismissal of employees in strikes or other industrial action
The following words shall be added to section 62(2) of the 1978 Act—
"or
(c) that the complainant had taken part in a strike or other industrial action in respect of which a ballot had been held which satisfied section 10 of the Trade Union Act 1984, and that the employer had acted unreasonably in dismissing the complainant
or
(d) that the complainant had taken part in a strike or other industrial action at the end of which the employer had refused to reinstate the complainant and during which the employer had engaged one or more new workers to do work which was the same or substantially similar to that done by the complainant" ").
The noble Lord said: It was my fate during the 1982 &1984 Bills on employment law and trade unions to move the first post-prandial amendment and, once again, I rise after dinner to an excited and crowded Chamber to move the amendment.
This is another of the amendments that we have called the fairness amendments. They are, as I have already said, particular points upon which we believe that at this stage the Government should think again about their employment and trade union legislation. The amendment before us concerns the dismissal of employees who are taking part in industrial action or who are locked out. That is to say, it concerns Section 62 of the 1972 Act.
At the moment, if I may summarise it baldly, the position is that unless an employer selects or victimises one or more of those who are taking part, who are locked out or who have a direct interest in the dispute or lock-out, no jurisdiction exists for an industrial tribunal to adjudicate upon a claim by one of those taking part in industrial action who have been dismissed that the dismissal was unfair.
The two areas where we say that that provision should be reviewed and where some small amendment should be made are, first, where there has been a valid ballot and the employer has acted unreasonably, and, secondly, where there has been industrial action and the employer has refused to reinstate after the end of the dispute or the lock-out and has taken on a substitute workforce during the dispute.
One of the reasons why we put these points—I am sorry again to weary the Minister with this source of our concerns—is the report of the committee of experts of the International Labour Organisation of April this year. The report reviewed carefully, against the backdrop of the freedom of association convention, the present state of the United Kingdom law on this matter. Although the Minister was able to produce one other area of review that led to adverse criticism of one other member of the Community—namely, the Federal Republic of Germany, with regard to the law that we previously debated—I suspect that in the area of the dismissal of those taking industrial action, there is no equivalent case. The report begins with the committee fully recognising,
"that the reform of the law on labour relations is both legitimate and necessary in order to ensure that the industrial relations system operates in an equitable and efficient manner, and that it adequately reflects current social and economic needs".
There is a long passage where the committee accepts the need to review and reform the law on those matters according to the country's policies. The committee goes on to say that looked at against the background of the law on freedom of association, according to minimum international standards as set out in the convention, the dismissal of strikers to the extent that we allow it is inconsistent with that minimum standard. I quote part of the conclusions:
"The Committee considers that it is inconsistent with the right to strike as guaranteed by Articles 3, 8 and 10 of the Convention for an employer to be permitted to refuse to reinstate some or all of its employees at the conclusion of a strike, lock-out or other industrial action without those employees having the right to challenge the fairness of that dismissal before an independent court or tribunal".
The refusal to reinstate without right to challenge forms part of our amendment. I am well aware that that would lead to the tribunal in such a case having to review the reasonableness of the dismissal. In other words, I am well aware that the bipartisan policies of 1971 and 1974—I do not include the present Government because they have gone far beyond them—which said that we must keep all the merits of industrial disputes outside the tribunal's purview, would be put aside. I accept that in the two cases I have mentioned the tribunals would have difficult decisions to make.
If one looks at the ILO's report and at what is done in other countries, it seems to us that this is not an impossible task and that it is necessary to bring our law up to international standards. The committee of experts says that whereas the employer may lawfully treat the employment relationship as at an end without more ado, in English law it accepts:
"This happens only infrequently in practice. But it can happen, and the Committee is aware that there have been a number of situations in recent years where employers have used the fact that their employees were on strike as an excuse for dispensing with the services of their entire workforce, and recruiting a new one".
The committee comments that that cannot be acceptable or consistent with any kind of right to strike. It concludes that Section 62 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 as amended by Section 9 of the 1982 Act leads the committee to consider:
"that this latter provision does not provide adequate protection for the purposes of the Convention: (i) because it still permits an employer to dismiss an entire workforce, even where the employer has initiated a lock-out or has provoked a strike through entirely unreasonable behaviour"—
the unreasonable behaviour is reflected in one part of our amendment, and—
"(ii) because an employer can re-hire on a discriminatory basis so long as there is a gap of three months between the dismissal of the 'victimised' workers and the re-hiring".
That of course is one of the consequences of the Government's amendments to the relevant legislation in 1982. The committee continues:
"Consequently, the Committee asks the Government"—
this is not just a comment—
"to introduce legislative protection against dismissal, and other forms of discriminatory treatment such as demotion or withdrawal of accrued rights, in connection with strikes and other industrial action so as to give effect to the principles set out above".
The amendment is more limited than the ILO's request in that last sentence. It does not deal with lock-outs. It deals only with dismissal and not with demotions or other disciplines. It does not make dismissal automatically unfair when exercised in retaliation or on provocation of the employer. It asks that two groups of employees should have an elementary right consistent, as the committee shows, with the international convention which has been ratified by this country, which the Government have not shown any signs of wishing to renounce. We all hope that they will never show any signs of wishing to renounce it as the basic international standard of freedom of association. It is true that that would alter aspects of the law as it has been in the past. We are not afraid to review what we have said in the past and find that part of it at least must be reviewed and, if necessary, amended.
There are two approaches to the other aspect of the amendment, ballots. One is to regard them as an expression of a democratic majority by which the minority must abide, at least in major respects, and to which it must owe some obligation. Of course the Government's approach is quite different. In their 1988 Act they have shown that ballots mean nothing as regards the minority if the majority is doing what the Government do not like. The ILO committee has declared this state of affairs to be a breach of freedom of association of the majority members of

865
the union, as well as the other aspects which I have cited.
It would be very unwise for the Government to rely upon these matters not being decided the same way by the Freedom of Association Committee if the issue goes there in the ILO, because the committee of experts is able to rely upon the approach of that committee in the past in reaching its conclusions.
In consequence, I quite expect that the Government will not accept this amendment. It is not in a sense moved in the spirit of wanting them to accept it as it stands. Indeed, when one examines it again, there are drafting problems. But I put it to the Government that this is the way in which international standards move. This is the level below which this country now falls. It is the only country in the Community which falls below that level. The law in Greece has posed problems, but my information is that it does not now fall below the level in the way in which some people said it did. The Government will not be able to continue in the Community with this isolated stance on matters of this sort, even this difficult one where English law leads to the notion that strikers can simply be dismissed en bloc at will. I hope that the Government will show some willingness to re-examine the problem in these two areas of the amendment. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, say that he did not expect nor even want the Government to accept the amendment. That makes my job slightly easier. Furthermore, the noble Lord spent a certain amount of time talking about the ILO. We have already touched on it so I shall not repeat what I said earlier. He also said that this country was now at the bottom of the international standard regarding employee rights. Does he not agree that if that is so, one of the reasons for it might well be that in the past we have had the most powerful, the most dangerous, the most ugly unions of any European country over the past 20 years? That has led us into the severest economic decline.
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Strathclyde: It is only since that has been overcome that this country has begun to perform efficiently economically. The proposed new clause, if accepted, would create a gross imbalance in the law by significantly restricting employers' ability to dismiss or refuse—
Lord McCarthy: Will the noble Lord give us a single piece of evidence for the astonishing things that he said? He said we had one of the worst, most dangerous trade union movements in the world. What scrap of evidence will he adduce for this at five past nine? I know—nothing.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not know whether the noble Lord spends any time outside his office or whether he travels up and down the country. I have to admit that when the reign of the noble Lord's unions came
866
to an end in 1979, I was still relatively young. However, I have certainly heard of the disgraceful antics of those unions. How much has changed today in a whole range of industries! The noble Lord was right: at five past nine perhaps we should not be getting into such an argument. However, the principle of what I said stands.
This new clause would create a gross imbalance in the law by significantly restricting employers' ability to dismiss or refuse to re-engage those who choose to take industrial action against them. Section 62 of the 1978 Act, as amended by the Employment Act 1982, provides that individual employees shall have the usual legal protection—through claims to an industrial tribunal—against unfair dismissal in cases where there has been selective dismissal during, or selective re-engagement following, industrial action. If in such a case the dismissal of an employee was found to be unfair, an industrial tribunal has its usual powers to provide a remedy.
At present an industrial tribunal may consider claims of unfair dismissal while taking part in industrial action—or refusal to re-engage following industrial action—only if an employer discriminates between those involved in the industrial action by dismissing, or subsequently offering re-engagement to, some but not others of those involved.
The new clause seeks to provide that a tribunal may, in addition, consider such claims if the complainant had been taking part in industrial action in respect of which there had been a proper union ballot producing a majority in favour of the action, or if the employer had taken on one or more workers to do the complainant's work or similar work during the industrial action. For employees to take industrial action—any sort of industrial action—is a serious matter. Employees who take such action know that they put their jobs at risk.
Provisions in UK law (Section 16 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974) specifically prevent a court making any order for the specific performance of a contract, or issuing art injuction to compel an employee to do any work or attend at any place to do any work. This guarantees employees' freedom to take industrial action.
On the other hand, our law in this country has always enabled an employer to take various measures up to and including dismissal against any of his employees who choose to take industrial action. To impose undue restrictions on an employer's ability to dismiss risks leaving him at the mercy of those who are prepared to continue industrial action indefinitely and thereby drive him out of business unless he settles the dispute on their terms. The new clause would impose just such restrictions and thereby create a gross imbalance in our industrial relations law as it affects the parties to a dispute.
Let me address each element of the new clause in turn. First, there is reference to,
"a ballot … which satisfied Section 10 of the Trade Union Act 1984".
What is the purpose of such a ballot, and what does it require? The relevant law provides that if a union is to retain immunity for organising industrial action

867
which would interfere with contracts it must hold a proper ballot in which a majority of those voting have answered yes to the appropriate question or questions. In requiring the union to hold such a ballot the law ensures that union members can expect to have a vote in a proper secret ballot before being induced to take industrial action by their union.
Such a ballot, and the casting of such a vote, does not oblige any individual to take such action. What is that question or questions that must be put in such a ballot? The question is simply whether the voter is prepared to take part in, or continue with, industrial action—either a strike or some other form of industrial action. The result of such a ballot is therefore completely irrelevant to the merits of the dispute to which it may relate, and should give no special protection to those who may subsequently decide to take or continue with industrial action.
Secondly, a further element in the proposed new Section 62(2)(c) refers to the assessment of whether the employer has acted unreasonably. I am afraid that I cannot see how this really helps matters. The use of a term such as "reasonable" or "unreasonable" in this context is simply too vague to be meaningful. By what criteria is a tribunal to assess such reasonableness?
I believe, therefore, that the inclusion of this part of the new clause is little more than window dressing for the real intention of the Members of the Committee who put down this amendment. That intention is to make it impossible for an employer to dismiss those who take industrial action if that action follows a ballot. As I have already explained, whether there has or has not been a ballot is really quite irrelevant to the merits of the dispute, or to the choice which those taking industrial action have made.
If a claim of unfair dismissal may be heard by a tribunal, the tribunal will consider the claim on its merits. To intrude a new concept of reasonableness, which I presume would be in some way detached from consideration of the fairness or unfairness of dismissal, simply serves to confuse.
Thirdly the proposed new Section 62(2)(d) seeks to constrain an employer's ability to take on workers to do the work which is not being done by those who have chosen to take industrial action, or even to do work substantially similar. It is not difficult to see the stranglehold over the employer that this would give to those taking industrial action. They could place him in an impossible position simply by ending their action and demanding their jobs back—even though those jobs were being done by others who had not behaved so irresponsibly as they had done. Unless he gives way to their demands, the employer would risk being taken to an industrial tribunal and forced to pay out substantial compensation.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Why did the Government take the trouble to introduce a series of pieces of legislation requiring ballots before industrial action, and that such ballots should render unions able to claim immunity, if such ballots did not also give any kind of protection to the employees
868
participating in the strikes? Does not the Minister appreciate that, without a clause of this kind, the employer is free to victimise people who take part in a quite properly convened strike following a quite properly conducted ballot?
Lord Strathclyde: What about victimisation of the employer? I think the noble Baroness misunderstands that the purpose of the ballot for unions was to prove that a sufficient majority within the unions approved of the executive's decision on whether or not there should be strike action.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness speaks from a considerable trade union background which might possibly be held to give her a biased view in favour of unions. However, I can only say that I am absolutely appalled—I do not come from a trade union background, although I have belonged to one—to hear what the noble Lord has to say. I have been frightened by some of the Government's trade union legislation although earlier on I backed it. The Minister appears to me to be saying that strikes are an improper action to be taken by trade unionists, even after a ballot. If it is never proper to take strike action, how can there be an appropriate balance of power between the union and the employer? That is what it is all about. Freedom of association, which is a basic freedom, is meaningless unless at the end of the day, if no satisfaction is reached through the negotiating process, members of trade unions or for that matter non-members of trade unions, have the right to withdraw their labour. If they do not have the right to withdraw their labour, the whole thing is a farce. If trade unions can be sacked wholesale because they have taken part in a properly conducted strike, the whole basis of freedom of association and all that it means is torn apart.
Lord Strathclyde: I think that the noble Baroness misunderstands the situation as it exists and always has existed. The law in this country has always enabled an employer to take various measures up to and including dismissal against any of his employees who choose to take industrial action. We are not introducing anything new here.
We have to consider the real world effects of this new clause, by which I mean the likely effect it would have in the context of our country's industrial relations systems and traditions. As such, it would in practice amount to a striker's charter, and completely distort the balance of our industrial relations law, particularly that balance that we have sought so hard to redress over the past 10 years.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I should say more about the subject since, as could be seen from the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lady Turner, the Minister's speech has turned into a major debate. If anything were needed to prove to the International Labour Organisation Freedom of Association Committee that the United Kingdom Government are not only below the international minimum

869
standards on this matter but also insist on remaining there, it was the speech of the Minister. It is a most important document and will be pored over, I am sure.
It is no good saying, in a moving world, "These are the international standards and we think that you are below them". It is no good to say that our law has always been like that. The Minister said that half a dozen times. I appreciate that the Minister said that he had learnt about the horrible events of 1979 and that we could debate those on some other occasion.
Instead of talking about that the Minister ought to look at four other countries: France, where it is elementary that the employer cannot take on temporary workers to substitute for a workforce on strike; Italy, where there are more rights in terms of rights to strike and trade union strength than he or his grandfather ever thought of; Sweden, where unions and management manage the labour market in ways which this country could well look at, with a right to strike well in advance of the minimum standards (and when it comes to training we ought to keep that country in mind too); and Germany, which has a clear right to strike well above the minimum standards, with co-determination with trade union rights—and a great deal of antagonism at times between workforce and employers—and with a structure which is reviewed from time to time to keep it up to date.
It has been at the root of debate upon this subject for many years that some people take the view that amendments like this one cannot be accepted. They seem to believe that there is a peculiar vice in Britain—economic, social, cultural, trade union or industrial—which means that unless we beat trade unions into the ground and insist on remaining below international standards on freedom of association, we cannot survive economically. No wonder our competitors regard us as rather odd. We are very insular. We do not go and look at them. The Minister should.
The basic issue on which the Minister touched briefly, and on which I agree with him, is that this is the only country in Western Europe—and perhaps soon in parts of Eastern Europe (what a contrast between the Government's attitude to Solidarity in Poland and what happens here)—where industrial action is almost automatically a breach of the contract of employment and not a suspension of it. I do not say that the law in the other countries is the same, but in most of them industrial action is a suspension while in this country it is a breach. One day we shall have to face that. If that is what the Minister was concerned about he should take an even longer trip and look at all the other systems as well. I should like to go with him, because it would be rather nice.
That is not what the amendment is about. It represents a tiny step towards the day when we confront that issue. I am proud that my party has confronted that issue in its policy review. People talk about the policy review as though there were nothing important in it. It contains a most important
870
matter in confronting that issue afresh. The Government will not confront it. The Government will not even look at our tiny amendments. The Government appear to be going to bring forward another Bill to make the matter worse, but we shall deal with that issue when we can. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Removal of requirement to notify local authority of storage of celluloid film]:
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: We now turn from the unsubstantiated and offensive allegations of the Minister about the British trade union movement to the actual small-mindedness of the Government. We turn to Clause 19, which is all about the storage of nitrate film.
In some ways that is a strange matter to find in an Employment Bill. It has nothing to do with employment; even the Government do not say that it has. It has nothing to do with sex discrimination, training, trade unions, and it does not even have anything to do with Sikhs. No reason has ever been advanced for it, even in terms of our old friend the burdens on business.
In itself the clause is a modest one. It is a modest clause because it removes a very modest item. As the Committee will know, under the present position, as a result of the 1922 Act, if one keeps inflammable nitrate stock one is supposed to tell the local authority and to pay the sum of £2 in order to register it. There is a great deal of old nitrate stock hanging around. It is not used any longer and has not been produced since 1952. We know where most of it is. It is in the National Film Theatre, the Imperial War Museum, the London Transport Museum, the Yorkshire Film Archive and so on.
At the moment, if one sells such stock or if it is disposed of, the buyer who buys that stock, if he knows about the law, is under the obligation to inform the local authority, who inform the local fire brigade that some of that 189 million feet of explosive stuff which is lying about somewhere belongs to him.
We are told that the older it gets the more dangerous it gets, and in fact it is becoming increasingly flammable. Some of it is virtually a candidate for spontaneous combustion. The present law says that if you have it or buy it or know of it you should write to the local authority, register it and pay the sum of £2. Goodness gracious me! Why not? It has been there since 1922. In all, conscience, it is an insignificant enough issue.
We are not proposing to the Committee at twenty past nine that there should be a Royal Commission to go into this matter. We do not suggest that the Health and Safety Executive should be alerted. We simply ask why the Government cannot leave it alone. On what possible explanation can they base their position? How conceivably could it be a burden on business? Which civil servant had to list 17 ways

871
of deregulating the economy and only got to 16, so that before he went out to lunch he had to find another one? What on earth are the Government talking about? Why cannot they take this away and forget it?
Lord Strathclyde: I have to say I was a little surprised when I saw that the noble Lord would speak against this clause. The plain answer to his question, "Why get rid of it after all these years?" is that it is simply to remove an outdated requirement from the statute book. Raw celluloid which contains cellulose nitrate is not now commonly used in industrial processes. It was used in the manufacture of cinematograph film, but this of course is no longer the case. The film which is manufactured today is of the non-hazardous cellulose acetate type, and action is being taken to copy archive material onto this type of film. Therefore, the present requirement to register is regarded as redundant.
About 90 per cent. of the old film in the country is in the National Film Archive and the Imperial War Museum. The National Film Archive was granted an exemption from the requirements in Section 1(1) of the Celluloid and Cinematographic Film Act 1922 by the Health and Safety Executive under Regulation 2 of that Act and its exemption regulations of 1980. Very few other premises, because of the small quantity of nitrate film stored in them, come within the scope of the 1922 Act. I think it is worth emphasising that we are not proposing to repeal the 1922 Act but only the redundant requirement to notify. There will thus be no diminution of existing standards of storage. These will continue to apply, as will obligations under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
Maybe the noble Lord is right. Perhaps we should not tidy up the statute book as we go along and perhaps we should leave old statutes to lie around as long as possible; but I do not believe it is out of place. This Bill is concerned with getting rid of much unnecessary legislation in the field of operation of the Health and Safety Commission and it is sensible to take advantage of this opportunity to tidy up the law in this way. I very much hope that the Committee will approve this clause.
Lord McCarthy: I am glad that the noble Lord has explained to the Committee why the Government have not given any explanation. It is because there is not one. He says that this measure is outdated. He does not know whether it is outdated. He means that there has not been a fire lately. He does not know whether there has not been a fire lately because of the regulations. He has absolutely no idea. He does not care, anyway. He is going round the treadmill. He is on automatic pilot again. There are 16 regulations to be abolished before lunch time. That is what this is all about.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I support my noble friend in what he has just said. Perhaps I may remind him that he is a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party Films Group. I wonder whether he has remembered that.
872
The noble Lord has not given an explanation to the Committee as to why this course is being taken except as a means of tidying up. Those are his words: it is to tidy up the legislation. Some of us believe that it is not simply tidying up. There is something of value here. I rise to my feet simply to remind the noble Lord of the old newsreels—both Pathé and Gaumont British—which are now stored at Elstree. Some of us visited the storage unit about six months ago. Television is now using those old newsreels more than ever in programmes, or to illustrate news which happens to be current. I believe that I heard the Minister state that one of the reasons is that the films could be transferred to new film which would not be capable of causing a fire.
When we visited the old newsreels store at Elstree I asked the director of the film library why it did not do that. He looked at me as though I were a simpleton, which I am on some things, and simply said, "There is so much film here"—there was millions of feet—"that it is too expensive". I hope that the Minister will accept that fact. Members on the other side of the Chamber are always talking about market forces. The director said, "We should love to do that, but we cannot." In those circumstances is it not part of the nation's heritage? We are a filmgoing nation. The Minister may shake his head. It happens to be one of my minor interests. The cinemas are now getting to the stage at which they used to be when I visited them two or three times a week.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister agrees with that. There are millions of feet of early film which are part of the heritage of the country and which ought to have protection. The silly reason given is that this is about tidying up legislation. The Minister ought to consider the matter again.
Lord Strathclyde: I am amazed by the interest that has been taken in this subject. I know that it is important. I had no idea that the noble Lord had such a great interest in films. Nor did I realise that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, had played a part in films in the past, as I understood someone to mention.
Celluloid is not now used to make films. It has not been used since 1952. The very few permanent stores which exist are known to the HSE, which is satisfied with the standards of safety provided. Because of its chemical nature, celluloid film eventually becomes completely useless as a visual record. Therefore images on the old stock continue to be transferred to safer, non-inflammable acetate films, which are more durable, and the old film is destroyed. Perhaps there is a confusion here. Perhaps the old film is not being kept but that what the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, is seeing is new film carrying old images.
The registration requirement does not achieve any particular health and safety purpose, therefore. The Health and Safety Commission has said that it is content for it to be removed. Yesterday we spent a great deal of time discussing whether we ought to

873
accept recommendations from the Health and Safety Commission. We are accepting this recommendation. But noble Lords opposite are complaining.
Lord McCarthy: It is not whether the noble Lord agrees with the Health and Safety Commission; it is when it agrees with him. I see the position.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Dissolution of Training Commission]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to subsection (2A), all the property, rights and liabilities to which the Training Commission was entitled or subject immediately before that date shall on that date become property, rights and liabilities of the Secretary of State for Employment.
(2A) Any liability in respect of pensions, superannuation allowances or gratuities which, but for the passing of this Act, would have arisen or existed on or after that date as a liability of the Training Commission to or in respect of the chairman or any former chairman of the Commission shall instead be a liability of the Paymaster General.").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the part of the Bill for which I know many Members of the Committee have been waiting. It is the list of amendments on the Training Commission and later the amendments on the industrial training boards.
In moving Amendment No. 42, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 43, 47 to 54 en bloc, 62 and 69. The long list of amendments derives from a single simple primary purpose: to transfer land currently held by the Training Commission to the Secretary of State for Employment on the dissolution of the commission.
As noble Lords will be aware, most of the civil estate is held by the Secretary of State for the Environment through the Property Services Agency. This group of amendments in no way affects the general principles underlying these arrangements. They are simply consequential upon the dissolution of the Training Commission.
The commission has always had power to hold title to both freehold and leasehold land and buildings, which it has exercised, in particular, in respect of significant proportions of the skills training agency sites and of the Jobcentre network. These mainly specialised buildings have never formed part of the civil estate managed through PSA. When the commission is dissolved, this property must be transferred to a new owner, and pending decisions about its destination, the Bill was drafted to provide for a Minister to be designated by the Secretary of State to hold the land title.
Direct land holding powers within the department will provide more direct accountability and responsibility for the Secretary of State and facilitate greater operational and administrative efficiency. For these reasons we have concluded that the title to commission land should be held by the Secretary of State for Employment.
To enable him to hold land the Secretary of State must first be constituted a corporation sole, and that is the effect of the main amendment in this group, Amendment No. 49. The other amendments simplify the current drafting, which had to differentiate between property going to the Secretary of State and land going to the designated Minister. The amendments provide that everything, with all the associated rights and liabilities, will transfer to the Secretary of State for Employment. There is only one exception, which relates to pensions, superannuation allowances and gratuities due to the chairman and former chairmen of the commission. The second half of Amendment No. 42 and Amendment No. 53 ensure that payment for these will be the responsibility, as usual, of the Paymaster General, while administration of the pensions remains with the Secretary of State.
Finally, I should draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 69, which extends the incorporation of the Secretary of State's office to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: As the Minister rightly said, this commences the series of amendments to which we took some exception yesterday when we protested that the amendments went far beyond what we thought was proper for a Bill of this kind and should really form the basis of an entirely separate industrial training Bill. That is still our position, although tonight we do not intend to oppose the amendments in the Lobbies. Nevertheless, I should like to take the opportunity to raise a few questions with the Minister and to make a few comments.
First, as regards Amendment No. 42 there is reference to steps to be taken to protect liabilities to the chairman or to any former chairmen of the commission. What steps are being taken to protect the rights, contracts and so on and the superannuation rights of members of the Training Commissions's staff, who presumably will be transferred under the new arrangements? I believe that the reference somewhere in the amendments to the transfer of undertakings' regulations will give some cover as regards employment contracts, but I am not aware that those transfer regulations relate to pensions. I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know what is intended there.
Secondly, when the amendments were first published we were puzzled about what was meant by corporate status. The Minister has explained that it is to enable land, property and so on to be transferred. We had a suspicion, which I voiced at the time, that it might perhaps be a basis for attempting at some future time to spin off the training arm into a private company. I should like to know more about the Government's intentions.
I should also like to make a few comments which may possibly be more appropriate in the debate on clause stand part. However, in passing I should say that the Opposition do not feel that it was necessary to do away with the Training Commission. We believe that it has performed a useful function and would have continued to perform a useful function had it been permitted by the Government to do so.

875
Over the years it has been involved in a number of extremely useful projects. It had a tripartite nature. It had the support of all sections of industry and commerce and there seems no reason to have terminated it in the arbitrary and abrupt fashion adopted by the Government.
The commission had widespread support. It was engaged on a number of important projects including some for women with which I was personally associated and which were important. It did not have the support from the Government that it should have had. We on this side of the Committee feel strongly that the Government's actions will not assist training in this country and may well have a reverse effect. It is with great regret that we observe the Government persisting with their attitude towards training. They are doing so in this half-hearted and half-baked way through a series of amendments which should have formed the basis of a separate Bill. That would have enabled both Houses of Parliament to have a proper debate on training and properly scrutinise the Government's intentions in this important field.
Baroness Seear: I fully realise that there is little we can effect at this stage because once again we are being presented with a fait accompli. I wish to put on record my great disapproval of the way in which training is being and has been handled for more than a year. The Manpower Services Commission was set up by an Act of Parliament and it was abolished overnight while Parliament was in recess. Therefore, there was no debate, proper or improper, about its work or its successor body. That was a year ago. The way in which it was torn apart was disgraceful. I know as a fact that the change was made in such a way that the commission's staff heard about it on the five o'clock news because the people to whom they reported had had no time to tell them what was to happen.
Furthermore, it is an insult to Parliament when a body as important as the Manpower Services Commission, dealing with training and set up with great care by a Conservative Government, is abolished overnight thereby providing it with no opportunity to influence its successor body. Now the Training Commission is being abolished, and without proper discussion and opportunity to contribute we are given what I agree is a half-baked substitute. We are handing over training to people who in the past have shown that they do not take training seriously. Training in this country was never needed more than now in order to make up for our never having done anything about it in the past. This is a disgraceful performance.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I rise to ask the Minister for clarification. In moving the amendments he appeared to say that their contents would in no way change the principle or organisation of the Training Commission. Did the Minister say that? If so, will the whole of the employment training scheme be affected?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not know what I said that may have given the noble Lord that impression.
876
The Training Commission will be dissolved. We are talking only about the transfer of land to the Secretary of State, who will look after it. The noble Lord and I may have misunderstood each other. If so, I shall write to him and explain exactly what I said.
Lord McCarthy: We may be talking only about the transfer of land in respect of these amendments. However, the Minister has tabled a vast number of further amendments which are even more complicated. There are Amendments Nos. 47 and 48; they go on for pages. In relation to those, is the Minister talking only about land? Will he tell us what he is talking about when he reaches the point; or will he rise and say that he has already done so? Are we to have an explanation of the rest of the amendments, and will it be about land?
Lord Strathclyde: In my opening remarks I said that I was speaking to all the amendments in the group. They are Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 47 to 54, 62 and 69. As I said, essentially these amendments derive from a single primary purpose; that is, to transfer land currently held by the Training Commission to the Secretary of State for Employment on the dissolution of the commission. There is nothing untoward or underhand about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked some specific questions as regards liabilities and about the civil servants who have worked for the commission. Because other members of the commission have never qualified for a pension, the chairman's pension and the past chairman's pension are covered by the provisions. Of course, the staff remain civil servants and continue to be covered by the usual Civil Service pension arrangements as well as other terms and conditions of employment.
Perhaps I could continue on the plans to sell land. I am aware that the noble Baroness was worried that land could be turned into separate companies and sold off. Within the Department of Employment there are a number of important initiatives under way including the sale of the Skills Training Agency. That is all public knowledge. The provisions which we are instituting today will help the efficient completion of that project by reducing the number of parties involved when the Skills Training Agency comes to receive parcels of land.
As to the general attitude towards training which both the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned, I think there is a temptation to believe that everything done in the past towards training was good and effective. I am not sure that that is entirely so. We have to look ahead, in view of the demographic changes we have already talked about, to see what can genuinely be done to help training in this country. The proposals which we have put forward, including the training agency and the new initiatives which are coming about, are a genuine step forward to help not only young people to become better trained but also to help people throughout their careers. I hope that that answers the general points.
Baroness Seear: It does not. The Minister has made an assertion. He says that things will be better but has not given a single reason why that should be. We need an analysis and information as to why there will be an improvement. The Government Front Bench are constantly doing this. They stand up and make assertions and hardly ever produce any factual evidence to support them.
Lord Strathclyde: We believe, and I think the noble Baroness will agree, that training in the past has not been as effective as it might have been. We are trying something new. We believe that industry should be more responsible for training because industry knows more about what kind of training is required and therefore will be in a better position to control the sort of training provided.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord really cannot get away with this. There has been nothing to stop industry doing that for the past half century. It has not done so. That being so, what evidence is there—and we are asking for evidence—that it will now do something different?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps the noble Baroness has missed the fact that we are setting up the TECs organisations which are proving so successful. The whole focus on employment training and YTS are very genuine commitments to training for the future. The noble Baroness asks why industry has failed apparently to train people in the past. When we reach the next group of amendments on the industrial training boards, we shall no doubt be told by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, why they have been so successful. Perhaps at that stage I shall be able to demonstrate rather more as to what is at the back of the Government's mind.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: We do not need to wait for anyone else because there has been a recent internal review. I have an article from the Guardian as recently as 14th October which states:
"The £1.45 billion Employment Training scheme faces considerable problems and has been launched 'in haste and uncertainty,' according to the first internal review".
I presume the Minister knows about that.
The article continues:
"The report, commissioned by the Training Agency, reveals many people have left the scheme early because they are frustrated at the way it has been operating in its first year.
"The review … suggests the quality of the managers and agents running the scheme for the Training Agency leaves much to be desired. There was no adequate information on why people left the scheme and the reasons given by those in charge of ET 'showed a poor understanding of the seemingly legitimate concerns of the client group whom they serve' ".
The report gets worse as it goes on. I said that was in the Guardian of 14th October. In the Guardian of 16th October it is apparent that someone has been taking notice because an article begins:
"A review of the Government's £1.45 billion Employment Training Programme has been launched by ministers after its poor record in its first year".
878
The Government themselves are saying that.
Finally, the Minister correctly said that the new principle involved with training is with industry itself, and that is the case. Industrial training in the past has had its successes and its failures with government schemes, some supported by the Labour Party. There is no doubt that under the new scheme proposed by the present Government, and which they are implementing, some of the schemes will be successful. I cite the engineering industry. There is no question but that the scheme will be a good one. I also believe that the building trade scheme will be successful. However, I put this direct question to the Minister. There will be some sectors of industry which will simply not provide a training scheme. That is a fact of life. Will the Minister say what is to be done about training in those sectors?
Lord Strathclyde: I shall first speak about employment training. ET is the largest and fastest growing adult training programme ever launched in this country. It aims to provide a flexible package of high-quality training for longer-term unemployed people which is locally planned and delivered to help them obtain and keeps jobs.
Nearly 450,000 people have started training on ET since the programme began and 208,000 people are currently training under ET. The article cited by the noble Lord included a comment about the report which was commissioned by an area office to provide local feedback to help operate ET mere efficiently and effectively. It was undertaken in February and March this year when ET was only six months old and 42 trainees, three training agents and five training managers were interviewed. The research identified a number of early teething troubles where there was a need for, first, better communications; secondly, better understanding of clients' needs; and thirdly, better systems. In the intervening months those have been addressed and eliminated. Drop-out from the training programme, although unfortunate, is much less than in previous training programmes.
I know that the Opposition is obliged to pick holes in whatever this Government do and to view employment training with a great deal of suspicion. However, this is a genuine commitment to getting longer-term unemployed people back to work by offering them effective training.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, made a point that sectors of industry would not provide training. I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord. I do not believe that in the highly competitive labour market of the 1990s any sectors of industry in this country will be able to afford to ignore their obligations to their employees in respect of training. As I said earlier, that goes for young people right through their careers, when training will have to be provided for them.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I ask the Minister to refer to an answer that I was given on the same point just before the Summer Recess. I regret I do not have the date to hand. His noble friend sitting beside him, who now has responsibility for Northern Ireland, will no doubt recall and confirm what I am about to say. He said then that he thought that was

879
a reasonable view for me to take and he would investigate it. I believe the present Minister is bound to say that that is more than likely to happen. I hope he will take the matter seriously.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 15, line 17, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) References in this Act to property, rights and liabilities of the Training Commission are references to all such property, rights and liabilities, whether or not capable of being transferred or assigned by the Commission.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 20, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I do not want to repeat what I have already said as regards the preceding amendments, but we are given the opportunity of saying again that we are totally opposed to what the Government are doing regarding the Training Commission. I repeat that in our view there is little evidence that training will be any better handled under the arrangements that the Government are proposing rather than under the Training Commission.
On the contrary, it is my view that, despite the criticisms that have been levelled at it and at what has happened in the past, the commission has endeavoured to raise the standard of training in this country and has had some success in that regard. It has had to oversee some government schemes that have been far from adequate. ET has been quoted by my noble friend. In my view, it is being increasingly seen as a means of providing employers with cheap labour rather than providing high quality training.
The reason for the dissolution would appear to be no more than the Government's ideological opposition to anything tripartite. The Training Commission actually had trade union representatives on it as well as employers. The trade union representatives attempted to play a very full part in the work of the commission. I was a member of the TUC General Council at a time when the representatives of the council used to make regular reports back to the general council itself and attempted to involve the whole trade union movement in support for what the Training Commission was endeavouring to do.
Apparently tripartism is not acceptable to the Government. When there was a decision at the 1988 Trades Union Congress against some of the government schemes (although that decision was quickly reversed) that was made the excuse for closing down the commission and for taking into the hands of the Secretary of State all arrangements for future industry training. The decision had scarcely been made before the Minister's honourable friend made the public announcement that the commission was to be no more.
We have already said what we feel about the amendments. We repeat that we are very much in favour of a widespread effort in the training field.
880
We know just how necessary that is from the standpoint of both industry and potential trainees themselves. We are particularly anxious that there should be suitable programmes for certain disadvantaged groups, for women and for women returners to industry. In that respect, and to my own knowledge, the Training Commission, in association with the EOC's WISE campaign—"Women into Science and Engineering"—was beginning to make some real progress.
We have grave doubts whether that progress will continue to be made under the arrangements now to be handled entirely in-house by the Secretary of State. For those reasons, it is our view that the clause should not stand part of this Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: This clause is an important one which provides for the dissolution of the Training Commission. As the Committee knows, the commission was established by statute under the Employment and Training Act 1973 and therefore can only be dissolved by primary legislation. Let me remind the Committee of the reasons why we are having to go through the process of dissolution and the very sorry and unhappy role that the TUC played in bringing it about.
It is just over a year now since the TUC decided to oppose the employment training programme. The programme was to be run by the Training Commission, and the commissioners, among them three commissioners nominated by the TUC, were to be responsible for ensuring its successful operation. Indeed—and what has not been said by the noble Baroness—the TUC commissioners, along with the others, had designed and agreed the programme. But when the TUC decided on its boycott it was clearly not possible for commissioners committed to opposing ET to sit on the body responsible for running that programme. The Secretary of State's concern was to safeguard the operation of the programme and he took immediate steps to remove the TUC's responsibility for a programme it was committed to oppose. That he was right to do so was demonstrated again only this weekend with three unions' irresponsible call on local authorities to withdraw from ET.
However, most of that is in the past; it is more than a year ago. We should leave the TUC and its negative attitudes and its failure to consider the country's long-term training needs. Let us look instead at the positive action the Government have taken and will be taking in ensuring that we have an adequately trained workforce. The Government have created a climate in which training and enterprise are flourishing. A survey in 1984 showed 1,806,000 people in training during the relevant four-week period. In the same period in 1988 the same survey showed 2,776,000 people being trained. The investment employers make in training is significant—£18 billion in 1986–87. But that is never enough and we need to do more.
Employers have the demand for skills. They must take the responsibility for training their employees. Training and retraining of those in work is crucial if we are to meet the challenges of the 1990s: eight out of 10 of the workforce in the year 2000 are

881
already in work. The message that training is as important an investment as new plant or machinery is now widely understood.
The Government are playing their part in improving our training performance. In 1979 government spending on training was £458 million. It is now £3 billion. For young people, YTS has become the accepted route into employment. Currently 411,000 are in training. Seventy-nine per cent. of YTS leavers go straight into a job, further education or training; and 63 per cent of those completing two years' YTS get a vocational qualification. For adult long-term unemployed people, employment training is the largest and fastest growing adult training programme ever introduced in this country. Introduced in September 1988, it has already helped train nearly 450,000 people to acquire new skills which will help them to rejoin the ever growing numbers of employed people.
But our most radical and important reform is the creation of a network of local training and enterprise councils which will plan and deliver training and enterprise development locally—tailoring our programmes to meet local needs. The needs of Gateshead are not the same as the needs of Reading. The Government recognise this and are devolving the decision-making on training to local level where practical solutions are best developed. The Government also recognise that employers are the main customers for training and the main providers of training. Training and enterprise councils will give business leaders for the first time the chance to lead our nation's training effort. Business leaders are
882
responding very well to this challenging opportunity. Already 28 TECs have been approved to receive development funding and plans for a further 50 or so are well-advanced.
Now let me remind the Committee briefly of the steps which have already been taken to transfer the Training Commission's functions, and the remaining steps by which this clause, together with Schedules 4 and 5, complete the process. In September last year, using his powers under the Employment Act 1988, the Secretary of State took back all the functions the commission had been exercising on his behalf—such as ET, YTS and TVEI—and transferred them to a new executive agency within the employment department group. This left the commission with only the few tasks assigned to it by statute to carry out. principally those concerned with the establishment, operation and winding up of industrial training boards. Later in this debate the Committee will be asked to consider new clauses specifically dealing with ITBs. In the meanwhile, Clause 20 gives effect to the amendments to the Industrial Training Act 1982 set out in Schedule 4 to the Act which transfers to the Secretary of State the functions of the commission under the 1982 Act. This will help ensure the continuity of ITB business.
The clause is a necessary and important step in setting up the new framework for training suited to today's and tommorrow's needs. I commend it to the Committee.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Duty owed to trainees and employees.
.—(1) This section applies to

(a) persons to whom section 26 of the Employment Act 1988 applies but who are not employees ("trainees"), and

(b) to any other person employed under a contract of service or of apprenticeship ("employees")

(2) The duty prescribed by this section shall be owed

(a) to a trainee by the person making or obliged to make payments within the meaning of section 26 of that Act, or

(b) to an employee by the employer.

(3) The duty prescribed by this section is a duty to ensure that reasonable opportunities are available for suitable training for the trainee or, as the case may be, for the employee, having regard to the work.
(4) In this section "the work" means either

(a) activities carried on under the arrangements made for the trainee to use the facilities, or

(b) the work which the employee is employed to do.

(5) Where a trainee or employee claims that the duty prescribed by this section has been broken, he may present a complaint to an industrial tribunal and where the tribunal finds that the complaint is well-founded, it shall make a declaration to that effect and may award compensation to the complainant of such amount as it decides is just and equitable.
(6) If an employee is dismissed and one ground for the dismissal is alleged by the employee to relate to breach of the duty under this section, the tribunal shall treat the dismissal as unfair and it shall be for the employer to show that he has not broken that duty.
(7) In determining whether training is suitable the tribunal shall take account in particular of the opportunities afforded for the trainee or the employee to attend courses of instruction or education, to acquire new skills or to improve his or her knowledge of the technology or methods relevant to the work.
(8) The tribunal may, in any case in which it sees fit, require a member of a panel of experts to prepare a report with respect to the question whether opportunities are suitable within the meaning of this section.").
The noble Lord said: During the course of his defence of Clause 20, the Minister said several things which I tried to write down. I may have got them wrong, but I understood him to say at one stage that there was an obligation—I shall come back to the nature of that obligation—to provide training for their employees throughout their careers. That is the way in which I noted it down. The Minister subsequently said that employers must have a responsibility to their employees for their training throughout their careers, or words to that effect.
The Government's problem is that, having rejected the route of tripartism and having decided that they do not want to take the route of the levy—they raise the money from industry and then distribute it to those who do the training—they are in effect left with no mechanism through which to carry out the training policies which, to be fair to them, they know that the country needs.
That is where we come to the Government's aid. The amendment provides the mechanism that they require. It does not involve any trade union or institution per se, nor does it involve the Government in the spending of any money. That is just as well because we know that, although, as the Minister said, the Government are now spending £3 billion on training, the Secretary of State has said that a large part of that sum—the part that is spent
884
on ET—is there because of the present high level of unemployment. Unless the Minister gets up—and if he does so, he will not be a Minister for very long—and says, "Don't worry. It will be £4 billion and £5 billion because unemployment will rise again", the Government are committed to phasing down expenditure on training as unemployment falls. So they have done away with the institutions and with any tripartite system and they do not want a levy. The greater part of the public subvention of training at the moment is related to the level of unemployment.
The Government must therefore come before us, as the Minister has done tonight, and rely upon the employer. As the noble Baroness said—and as, to my knowledge, she has been saying for at least 10 years—all the evidence suggests that, when one asks the employer to do that, he falls flat on his face. He has never done it before in sufficient volume and there is no indication that he would do it in sufficient volume in the future if we did not need an increase in training. But the Government know and do not deny that we need a substantial increase in training. We may need at least two-thirds as much training as we have now—I am not talking about the quality; we should feel the width—if we are to come anywhere near the level of training of our major European competitors.
We must therefore have some form of lever. In the clause we suggest an individualistic lever. One could not get more individualistic than this. This is micro-individualistic, right down to the individual worker. We suggest and this is the guts of the amendment—that there should be a right for trainees and individual workers (we want to bring everyone into this) to receive training, and a duty on their employers to provide it. The key part of the amendment is that which states:
"a duty to ensure that reasonable opportunities are available for suitable training for the trainee or, as the case may be, for the employee".
The amendment is intended to be very comprehensive in terms of its coverage. It is intended to cover all employees and trainees covered by Section 28 of the Employment Act 1988; namely, all those on recognised schemes.
Unfortunately, those who specialise in criticising the minutiae of our amendments do not happen to be here this evening. It is always possible to say that the minutiae of amendments are wrong. It is always possible to say that we are wrong or that they could think of something better to motivate the sanctions—to put them, as it were, through industrial tribunals. We say that industrial tribunals should consider complaints from individuals—no collectivities because the Government do not like collectivities—and they should appoint experts to prepare a report on the training provided; in other words, we are taking a course which has been suggested by the Government. Similar action is taken in the area of sex discrimination and of fair treatment.
Those individuals should seek to enforce their rights through industrial tribunals, and the tribunals

885
should consider the complaint. The argument in favour of that suggestion is that without some such impetus it is difficult to see how the country's training will compare favourably in volume and quality with that of our major competitors.
The recognition of the need for training is now reaching out to the majority of our population, as it does in Germany and in Sweden, where they have similar schemes. We know that we need increased training for the young, for those who are declared redundant, for those who need retraining and further retraining, for women and for the long-term unemployed. We know that we need improvements in the volume of training in some key industries, occupations and groups. We know that the congenital desire, as the noble Baroness so frequently reminds us, of the British employer to poach rather than to train has somehow to be set aside. If it is not to be done by a levy, or some system of tripartism, we suggest an alternative way in which it might be done.
There exist at the moment a set of institutions which the Government still have. Unfortunately, to judge by what the Minister has said this evening, they are thinking of privatising them (selling them all), but until they have all gone, the Government at least have a set of institutions. What they do not have is any kind of motivating force, anything to push people through the training process. That is what we suggest in the amendment. The Government may say that it is wrong in detail. We say that, whether it is right or wrong in detail, it is the right way forward and the only way forward for a government who have closed every other door. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: Before the Minister tells us that employers will look after all this in their own enlightened self interest, I should like to ask him one or two questions. He has said that YTS is now the great recognised challenge for people going into employment and that it provides an excellent training. I was closely associated with YTS until the Minister arbitrarily abolished all the boards connected with it. Not that that matters; there are many other jobs to do.
We all knew then, and if the Minister knows anything about YTS he must know it too, that there was some extremely good YTS but there was some inferior YTS. What is perhaps more important even than that now, is that with rising employment opportunities for youngsters, a great many school leavers do not go through YTS; they obtain jobs directly, jobs which they still misguidedly call "real" jobs. The belief in training has not penetrated into their heads, their parents' heads or in many cases their school teachers' heads, and the fact that they can obtain rather more money in a job which is not in YTS has been the most enormous inducement not to go into YTS. That is what has been happening.
Some months ago, I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, who has just left the Committee, what proportion of those youngsters who went
886
directly into employment rather than YTS were having day-time release. The answer was 5 per cent. That being so, I should be glad if the Minister could update the figure and tell us what is happening. It is a very important question: what is happening to the youngsters who do not go into the YTS? It is easy for them to avoid it now. I assure the Minister that a great many of them want to avoid it and are avoiding it. If employers are now so training-minded, we shall find that a great many of those youngsters are being given day-time release. If that is not now happening and if the figure which the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, gave me months ago is still approximately the same, surely that is good evidence that not only the youngsters, their parents and their teachers, but also employers, are not convinced of the importance of training.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Baroness. I do not have at hand the information as to whether or not the figure of five per cent. on day release has changed. I am not at all convinced that the pure example of whether or not there is day release shows that there is effective or ineffective training in the private sector for young people. I am not sure that the noble Baroness has proved that it is not effective.
Perhaps I may turn to the amendment which we are discussing. It strikes me as a strange amendment. Not only is it radical, very novel and totally new; it also seems to go against current Labour Party policy as described in the policy review, Meet the Challenge, Make the Change. The noble Lord says "Excellent". That may well be.
Lord McCarthy: I did not say that.
Lord Strathclyde: It also seems to go,against the TUC retraining document, Skills 2000. That is a problem for the noble Lord and his party and not mine. I assume that the intention of this amendment is to increase the amount of appropriate training undertaken in this country. If so, I welcome and applaud the principle but have grave doubts as to its application.
We do not believe that compulsion is the answer. Employers are most likely to benefit from securing an adequate supply of skilled workers. They are also best placed to identify and meet emerging skill needs. This is why we have invited employer-led groups to set up TECs, to plan and deliver training at a local level.
Any regulation which sought to increase the volume of training investment, without taking account of these crucial factors, would be likely to result in training for its own sake with the consequent likelihood of increased employment costs and wasted investment. I have shown how much major investment the Government are making in training. I believe that this amendment would not further the cause of training.
Baroness Seear: I did not answer the noble Lord when he challenged me over day-time release. Of course I do not believe that day-time release is the be-all and end-all of training. It is not. Those of us who have been deeply involved in training in one way and another—and I rather wonder how involved the Minister has been in training—know that what we need is complementary training of a practical kind with some kind of day-time release in many cases, but not in all cases.
Because changes take place so fast in industry and people have to learn and be able to learn and learn again, there is a great deal that they need to know. The YTS experience, sadly, was that many of the youngsters who came from school were quite unprepared to cope with the demands which industry would make on them. They needed additional training outside.
Of course that training should be closely related to the training that goes on inside the place of work. But good training at the industrial level is not as common as I believe the Minister optimistically thinks. Some absolutely first-class training is going on but it is not just a matter of "sitting next to Nelly" and being told by someone what to do. It is a great deal more than that. A vast number of the smaller firms are incapable of giving that kind of training. They need outside assistance.
Finally I wish to ask the Minister this. With the new schemes that have been set up, what system of evaluation do the Government have to find out whether the schemes are working? Will we be told what system the Government have? How is this to be done? What will happen in a year's time? We are all deeply concerned about the development of training. We want to know how it will be checked and monitored, and that that process will be effective. What scheme has been set up for such monitoring?
10.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: A propos those remarks, will the Minister say what training is to be given to the trainers? The point that the noble Baroness made is absolutely crucial. We can talk in broad terms about training, but the man in the training centre or on the shop floor, or wherever it is, has to be good at training. It is not just a question of being a craftsman; he has to know how to teach. He must be able to get the message over. That is absolutely crucial. Will the Minister say whether the Government will introduce training for trainers?
Lord Strathclyde: First, I shall respond to the noble Baroness. The framework that the Government are working under was introduced by the White Paper of last year. I am sure that the noble Baroness has read that. The essential framework has three levels at which to work: the local level, which involves the training and enterprise programmes; the industrial level, which involves standards and quality monitoring; and the national level which involves developing policies for priority. That is a multi-faceted approach to training as a whole. There is no desire for this Government to allow training
888
to be forgotten. I hope that that case is virtually proved by the number of new initiatives that are being and have been introduced by the Government, and by the amount of money that has been spent.
As to qualitative assessment of how training works, the department is responsible for spending Government money. I, as a Minister, am responsible to Parliament for finding out how that money is being spent. There are continual studies made on how money is being spent and how effective that money is. It would be quite wrong if that were not the case. We must know how our policies are working and whether or not they are succeeding in their original intentions. That process will continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked a question about the training of trainers. I have to say that the training of trainers is already a feature of training agency activity. Again that activity is continually looked at, and where it is found to be failing it will be improved.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord has had a long and exhausting time at the Dispatch Box. He has taken on the Committee stage of the Bill single-handedly and, quite understandably, he is tiring. Even his advisers are tiring. At this time of night to come up with such a reply is not very good. The Minister referred to three levels. The TUC will not like them, but leave me with the TUC. The staff on the Walworth Road site will not like them, but leave me with them. The TUC and the staff on the Walworth Road site are extremely flexible these days, and they will adopt something quite similar. In any case it is not much of an argument to come from this Government. The TUC will not like it, the Walworth Road staff will not like it and, God Almighty, it is 10 minutes past ten o'clock! The Government can do better than that, but they do not do so. When they have exhausted that new line, they go back to the old one. The Government say that the matter should be left to employers. It is not a matter of asking the leopard to change its spots, but rather a matter of asking it to change its skin.
All the tests in terms of volume, level, comprehensiveness and the key groups which need to be trained, show that British employers will not train. If they would do so, we would not be where we are. We would not be trying year after year to find new ways to tackle training. All that the Government can find to say is that the TUC and the staff at the Walworth Road site may not like the idea, but we must leave the matter to the employers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Dissolution of Training Commission: amendments of the Industrial Training Act 1982]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 24, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendments that we have tabled to the Industrial Training Act is to enable us to carry forward our policy on the development of sector-based training organisations. The White Paper Employment for the 1990s set out the Government's views on the need

889
for a radical reform of the present training system. A new framework is needed if we are to address the challenges posed by increasing technological change, greater international competition and demographic change in our workforce.
I remind the Committee that in paragraph 4.8 the White Paper set out six key principles for successfully establishing that framework. They were, first, that training and vocational education must be designed to help business success and economic growth. Secondly, employers and individuals need to accept more responsibility for training, including the cost, with the Government's role being to set the framework and provide funds for training unemployed people.
Thirdly, the qualifications being obtained through training must embody recognised, nationally validated standards of competence that are relevant to employment, drawn up by industry-led organisations and covering every sector or occupational group. Fourthly, the training must provide young people and adults with the opportunity to secure qualifications based on those standards. Fifthly, responsibility for delivering training must be devolved to local areas and bring together private and public investment. Sixthly, enterprises, individuals and local communities must be able to influence the shape of local training.
That new framework will operate at three levels—national, industry and local. The amendments that we have tabled concern the industry level and involve the majority of the six principles that I have outlined. The main task of industry level training organisations is to identify and set standards for training, to ensure that those standards are recognised nationally, and to monitor the quality of employers' own training efforts.
We believe that the key to success lies in generating and maintaining commitment by employers themselves on a voluntary basis. Our objective is to see standards-setting bodies established by employers with widespread support from within the industries concerned. We do not believe that industrial training boards, based as they are on statutory regulation, have raised or indeed can raise sufficiently the standard and quality of training provided by employers themselves, particularly for their own employees.
We therefore ask the seven remaining boards, which between them cover 20 per cent. of the British workforce, to bring forward proposals to develop independent, voluntary training organisations with strong employer support which will not rise to a statutory level. Our objective is that so far as possible those will replace the statutory boards.
The Secretary of State has been considering those proposals carefully and will shortly make an announcement on the future arrangements in the sectors presently covered by statutory ITBs. The objective of the amendments is to make it easier to move from the present position of statutory boards to the employer-led voluntary organisations envisaged in the White Paper. We want to enable
890
the transfer of those existing board functions that the successor bodies wish to continue to take place with the minimum loss of momentum.
We have therefore proposed new powers for the board's assets to be transferred and have extended the protection available to board employees involved in a transfer. We also propose changes to the consultation requirements on orders affecting the scope of ITBs and changes to the composition of boards to create the employer leadership that we believe is necessary to ease the transformation of boards to employer-led voluntary arrangements.
The changes proposed will also enable any boards which we decide should remain in being in the longer term to address more effectively the improvements in current performance that we all desire.
There are three new clauses and a number of minor consequential amendments to take forward our policy on industrial training boards. The first clause deals with the requirements on the Secretary of State to consult before making orders affecting the scope of ITBs. At present he has to consult relevant trade unions and employer associations. We believe that in future employers should be the only group with a statutory right to be consulted, although others can be consulted if the Secretary of State judges it appropriate. The clause will create a consultation process which reflects the proper balance of interests in establishing effective employer-led training arrangements.
The second new clause enables the key activities of ITBs to be continued without disruption during the transition of boards to non-statutory status. It provides that, where a board is to be wound up or its coverage reduced, it can, with the Secretary of State's agreement, pass on assets to a successor free or at less than market value to be used for charitable purposes connected with training for employment.
The position of staff involved in such a transfer will be safeguarded by extending the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations to them. Their existing terms and conditions of employment will thus be preserved. The general purpose of the clause is to smooth the transition from statutorily based ITBs to a voluntary approach which the Government believe offers the best prospect of better and more cost effective training arrangements. Both the firms and the industries affected and the staff of the ITBs involved will benefit from the change to voluntary status being achieved with minimum disruption.
The third new clause changes the balance of interest represented on ITBs to create clear employer leadership. This will enable the move from statutory ITBs to employer-led voluntary successor arrangements to take place more smoothly. Boards can be reconstituted to reflect more closely their eventual non-statutory composition prior to being wound up.
If the Government decide that it is appropriate to retain statutory boards in any sectors, this amendment would also ensure that they would be employer-led. This amendment will thus give ITBs the employer leadership that we believe is necessary to improve their effectiveness.
Under the terms of the clause the Secretary of State will in future be required to undertake consultation only with employer organisations before making appointments to ITBs. The majority of board members will have to be employers or managers within the relevant industry. He will be free to appoint others to membership of the board as appropriate and I am sure that he will use that power to ensure that the most important interests are represented within the context of clear employer leadership. The overall effect of these changes will be to help create the basis for improved effectiveness in sector-based training arrangements. I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: As the Minister said, this series of amendments covers the Government's intentions in relation to industry training boards. The Minister said when he presented them to the Chamber that a new framework was needed. I believe that he was quoting from the original White Paper. If so, is this the framework? If it is, it seems to me that it needs to be greatly fleshed out. Since we have not had a great deal of time to consider these amendments, we on these Benches intend to reserve our position on them and come back on Report.
In the meantime, there are one or two questions that I should like to put to the Minister and one or two comments to make. First of all, with regard to existing industry training boards, both the CITB and the EITB are in touch with me. They seem to me to have played a constructive and useful role in the past. What exactly is to be their position in the future?
I must say to the Minister that my information is that the staff at the CITB are particularly worried about the amendments. They approached me today and asked whether I would be good enough to send them a copy of the amendments. They were very worried about what was entailed in them. It looks as though there has not been very much consultation with the staff of those bodies before these amendments came before this Chamber.
Secondly, what happens to the statutory role which I believe not just the unions but also employers think should exist in construction? I gather that the EITB is concerned about its engineering construction role and believes that there should be some kind of statutory role in relation to construction. That is also the view of the CITB. The Minister has dealt briefly with the intentions of the Government in relation to the staff of those bodies by referring to the reference to the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations of 1981. As I said in my previous contribution, those regulations give some protection in relation to contracts of employment but no protection at all as regards pensions, which are not covered by the regulations. I should be interested to know what kind of protection the staff can expect in that regard.
As regards the existing projects of the two ITBs to which I referred, and the EITB in particular, as I said earlier the EITB has undertaken a number of special projects and in particular a special project about women. I was involved in one of these project
892
earlier in the year and was very impressed with what was being done. I talked to a seminar of women aged between 18 and 50 on the EITB project. None had previously been involved in engineering. Some were aiming to come back into the workforce after a break. One woman to whom I spoke was over 50 and recovering from a broken marriage. She said that the opportunity offered to acquire skilled training in this regard was giving her an entirely new lease of life. The visit was quite a moving experience. One would like those projects to continue.
I should like to know whether the successor bodies will have the finance and general resources available to continue with the very valuable work. The assets of the EITB will be transferred to the successor bodies. But what happens after those assets have been exhausted? Where will the resources come from to continue with these projects?
Finally, I understand that the EITB made some proposals to the Government in June. When can it expect to hear from the Government in relation to those proposals? Was that covered by the statement of the Minister when, presenting these amendments to the Committee, he said that the Government were shortly due to make clear their intentions in regard to the future of existing bodies?
With those few remarks, I do not intend tonight to oppose the amendments from these Benches. However, I give notice that we shall expect to have the opportunity of scrutinising them in more detail at Report stage. These are very complicated amendments. We have had very little time to examine them. Until the Minister spoke we had not had the opportunity of hearing the Government's intentions. For those reasons, we may want to put down some detailed amendments at the next stage.
Lord Strathclyde: In moving Amendment No. 45, I should have said that I was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 46, 55 to 58, 61, 63, 65, 67, 68 and 70.
I generally welcome the words of the noble Baroness. I understand exactly what she is saying: that she has not had time to read what I have said and to consider the comments that I made in what I know was quite a lengthy introductory speech. I shall welcome the chance to discuss some of these issues again when we reach Report stage.
Pehaps I may make a general comment about the future of the ITBs because I know that this is a matter about which many Members of the Committee are concerned. I made the point in my speech—and I shall do so again—that the Secretary of State has been considering very carefully a variety of proposals. He will shortly be making an announcement on future arrangements in the sector presently covered by the statutory ITBs. It would be wrong of me to try to pre-empt that decision now. I hope that the noble Baroness and Members of the Committee opposite respect that view and see that the amendments are enabling amendments to carry forward our policy on the development of sector-based training organisations as laid out in the employment White Paper.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 24, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (7), for "section 3(2)" substitute "section 3(1)(b)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Dissolution of Training Commission; supplementary provisions.]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 54:
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("and").
Page 26, line 37, at end insert ("; and
"the relevant Minister" (subject to paragraph 4(3) of this Schedule) means—

(a) in relation to any function of the Commission, the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to any property, right or liability of the Commission, the Secretary of State for Employment.").

Page 26, line 37, at end insert—
("Incorporation of Secretary of State for Employment
1A.—(1) The person who on the date on which this Act is passed is Secretary of State for Employment and his successors shall be, by that name, a corporation sole, with a corporate seal.
(2) The corporate seal of the Secretary of State for Employment shall be authenticated by the signature of a Secretary of State or of a Secretary to the Department of Employment, or by a person authorised by a Secretary of State to act for the purpose.
(3) The corporate seal of the Secretary of State for Employment shall be officially and judicially noticed, and every document purporting to be an instrument made or issued by the Secretary of State for Employment and to be sealed with that seal authenticated in the manner provided by sub-paragraph (2), or to be signed or executed by a Secretary to the Department of Employment, or a person authorised as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, shall be received in evidence and be deemed to be so made or issued without further proof, unless the contrary is shown.
(4) A certificate signed by the Secretary of State for Employment that any instrument purporting to be made or issued by him was so made or issued shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
(5) Any document made or issued at any time before the date on which this Act is passed—

(a) by the Secretary of State for Employment (whether as such or as the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity), or

(b) by the Minister of Labour in connection with matters which, on that date, fall within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Employment,

shall, if effective immediately before that date, have effect as from that date as if it had been made or issued by the Secretary of State for Employment as a corporation sole; and where the document was sealed or signed as mentioned in section 11(2) of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act 1916 (as in force at the time of the sealing or signing of the document) it shall have effect as from that date as if it had been sealed or (as the case may be) signed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) above.
(6) Accordingly any document to which section 11(2) of that Act applied immediately before that date shall be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) above as if it were a document purporting to be such an instrument as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph; and the repeal by this Act of section 11(3) of that Act shall not affect the validity of any certificate issued before that date in pursuance of that provision.").
Page 26, line 42, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("relevant Minister").
Page 26, line 45, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("relevant Minister").
Page 27, leave out lines 26 to 32.
Page 27, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert—
("4.—(1) The power of the Secretary of State to make determinations under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Employment and Training Act 1973 shall, notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of that paragraph, continue to be exercisable by him in relation to preserved pensions.
(2) Any function which immediately before the date on which this Act is passed was a function of the Commission in relation to preserved pensions (other than its function of making payments in respect of such pensions) shall on t lat date become a function of the Secretary of State.
(3) References to the relevant Minister in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Schedule shall, in the application of those paragraphs in relation to—

(a) the Commission's function of making payments in respect of preserved pensions, or

(b) any liability in respect of such pensions which is transferred by section 20(2A) of this Act,

be construed as references to the Paymaster General.
(4) In this paragraph "preserved pensions" means pensions, superannuation allowances or gratuities in respect of which liabilities are transferred to the Paymaster General by section 20(2A) of this Act.").
Page 27, leave out lines 38 to 41.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 56:
Before Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation in connection with industrial training orders.
. In section 1 of the Industrial Training Act 1982 (establishment of industrial training boards), the following subsection shall be substituted for subsections (4) and (5)—
"(4) Before making an industrial training order the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such organisations or associations of organisations appearing to him to be representative of substantial numbers of employers, and such bodies established for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking, as he thinks fit; and

(b) such other organisations, associations or bodies (if any) as he thinks fit." ").

Insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of assets or staff of industrial training boards. 1982 c. 10.
.—(1) The following sections shall be inserted after section 3 of the Industrial Training Act 1982—
"Transfer of assets on revocation or amendment of industrial training order.
3A.—(1) Where an order has been made under section 1 above which—

(a) revokes an industrial training order, or

(b) amends such an order so as to exclude from the scope of operation of an industrial training board some of the activities in relation to which it exercises functions,

the board concerned—

(i) may with the consent of the Secretary of State, or

(ii) shall if he so directs,

transfer all or any of its assets to any person on trust to be used for charitable purposes which are related to or connected with training for employment.
(2) A transfer under subsection (1) above may be made for a consideration which is less than the market value of the assets transferred or for no consideration; and different assets may be transferred by a board under that subsection to different persons.
(3) It is hereby declared that a transfer under subsection (1) above may be made in a case where an industrial training order is revoked even if the assets of the board concerned are (or will be after the transfer) insufficient to meet its liabilities and the expenses of the winding up of the board in pursuance of section 4(1) below.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the provisions of section 15(5) to (9) below shall apply in relation to any direction given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to any direction given by him under section 15(1) or (2) below.
(5) Where any such direction is given in a case where an industrial training order is revoked, those provisions shall so apply with the omission from section 15(6) below of the words from "during such period" onwards.
Transfer of staff employed by boards.
3B.—(1) If arrangements are made (whether in connection with a transfer of assets under section 3A(1) above or otherwise) for any activities of an industrial training board to be carried on by some other person ("the transferee") as from a particular date, this section shall have effect in relation to any employee of the board who, immediately before that date, was employed wholly or mainly in connection with those activities.
(2) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply in relation to any such employee of the board in accordance with subsection (3) below.
(3) For the purposes of the application of those Regulations in relation to any such employee, the activities referred to in subsection (1) above shall (whether or not they would otherwise be so regarded) be regarded—

(a) as constituting an undertaking within the meaning of those Regulations which is transferred from the board to the transferee on the date referred to in that subsection, and

(b) as being so transferred by a transfer to which those Regulations apply and which is completed on that date.

(4) A certificate issued by an industrial training board, in connection with any such arrangements as are referred to in subsection (1) above, to the effect that a person was, immediately before the date referred to in that subsection, employed by the board wholly or mainly in connection with the activities to which the arrangements relate shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in the certificate."
(2) In section 4(2) of the Industrial Training Act 1982 (winding up of industrial training boards), the following provisions shall be substituted for paragraph (b)—
"(b) for any assets of the board which are not required to meet those liabilities and expenses to be transferred to the Secretary of State and for those assets to be applied for purposes specified in the order.
Any reference in this subsection to the assets of the board is a reference to the assets (if any) held by it after the making of any transfer or transfers under section 3A(l) above." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 57:
Before Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Constitution of industrial training boards.
.—(1) In Schedule 1 to the Industrial Training Act 1982 (constitution etc. of industrial training boards), the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 3—
"3.—(1) An industrial training board shall consist of—

(a) a chairman and, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, a deputy chairman, each of whom shall be a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have industrial or commercial experience;

(b) such number of persons appointed after the appropriate consultation as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and

(c) such other persons (if any) whom it appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate to appoint in addition to those appointed by virtue of paragraph (b) above.

(2) A person appointed by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall at the time of his appointment be a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be concerned (whether as a director, manager or sole proprietor or otherwise) in the management of the activities, or any of the activities, of an employer engaging in the industry; and the reference in that provision to the appropriate consultation is a reference to consultation with such organisations, or associations of organisations, representative of employers engaging in the industry as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make any appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above if to do so would result in the number of persons for the time being appointed by virtue of that provision being equal to, or greater than, the number of persons for the time being appointed by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above.
(4) References in the following provisions of this Schedule to a chairman include a deputy chairman."
(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Secretary of State may reconstitute the membership of an industrial training board as from any time after the passing of this Act—

(a) by terminating such of the appointments of its existing members as would otherwise expire after that time, and

(b) by making fresh appointments to it, as from that time, in accordance with the provisions substituted by subsection (1) above.

(3) The termination of a person's appointment to an industrial training board in accordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above shall not preclude him from being re-appointed to the board in pursuance of paragraph (b) of that subsection.
(4) The power conferred on the Secretary of State by subsection (2) above shall not be exercisable in relation to an industrial training board if all of its members were appointed to it in accordance with the provisions substituted by subsection (1) above (whether they were so appointed in pursuance of subsection (2)(b) above or otherwise).").
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 57, Amendment No. 58:
Line 19, in the proposed new paragraph 3, at end of sub-paragraph (2) insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall consult with those organisations which appear to him to be representative of the employees in the industry concerned and shall seek from them nominations of suitable persons to serve on the Board, the final decision on appointment to be left with the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: The reason for the amendment is fairly clear. The Minister has given plenty of evidence during the course of the debate that the Government are not keen on the tripartite nature of much of our industrial training arrangements to date. He has said some rather unkind things about trade unions' attitude to training. I have an opportunity now to refute some of what he said. He said that the TUC's attitude has been negative. That really is not the case. The trade union movement in my experience—I was a trade union official for a large number of years—has always been very keen on training. The opposition from the TUC General Council arose only when it believed that some of the Government schemes were not proper schemes at all, or were not what we regarded as quality schemes, and could lead to the exploitation, particularly of young people, by employers who would see those schemes as an opportunity to use young people as cheap labour.
It was the quality of the schemes, rather than opposition to training as a whole, which led the unions to take the view that they did. They have

897
always been in favour of a tripartite approach. Until relatively recently, previous governments have been in favour of a tripartite approach because the original industry training Act, under which the industrial training boards were established, was introduced in 1965 under a Conservative administration. We see no reason why that tripartite philosophy should be departed from.
Amendment No. 58, as an amendment to the Government Amendment No. 57, provides that the Secretary of State should consult organisations which appear to him to be representative of employers in the industry concerned and should seek from them nominations of suitable persons to serve on the board, but the final decision on appointment would, of course, be left with the Secretary of State. That seems to us to be entirely reasonable. We do not see how any scheme of industrial training can possibly succeed unless there is involvement of representatives of the workforce. That is especially important at work place level. It is important for the people who are asked to co-operate at work place level with training schemes to understand that their unions are involved at a higher level and that their unions are committed to the schemes. Where that has happened I know from my own experience that there has been support at work place level for schemes that have been introduced.
Certainly during my period as a union official, my own unions supported YTS where it was felt that they were genuine schemes which would genuinely lead to proper training and work opportunities for young people. We have never adopted a negative attitude. Indeed it does a disservice to all preceding generations of both employers and trade unionists to give the impression that that has been the case in the past. That has never been the case and it is wrong for the Government to attempt to lay at the doors of the tripartite philosophy and system the past failures of training in this country. That is not the right place to lay blame. It can more easily, effectively and rightly be laid at the door of many managements which have not been prepared to take training seriously or to participate effectively in training operations. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise for the mix-up over which amendment we had reached. It was entirely my fault. Our approach to sector-based training organisations is to encourage, where possible, the creation of voluntary employer-led bodies to attract the commitment of senior management within the relevant sectors. The government amendment is designed to assist in this process by providing for employer-led statutory boards either as a step towards employer-led voluntary arrangements or, if we decide that it is appropriate, any continuing statutory boards.
As I noted in moving the new clause we would expect boards to contain representatives of all those interested in securing adequate training arrangements—and, in particular, industries—and the Secretary of State will be free to consult and appoint as he considers appropriate. We do not believe that it will assist the task of attracting greater
898
employer commitment to sector-based training to impose further obligations on the Secretary of State as regards consultation and membership of the ITBs. However, we recognise the interests of employees and their representatives in the matter.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: The Minister must realise that there is an age-long tradition of trade union involvement in training. The trade unions have taken an active part. Sometimes they have been obstructive; I do not agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Not all unions in all areas have been favourable. But many have. Good training cannot be carried out inside an organisation unless there is active support from employees.
This is a modest little amendment. It does not ask for any powers for the representatives of labour; simply that they should be consulted. The Minister's hatred of trade unions has appeared this evening. Surely he is not so doctrinaire in his refusal to understand that in any enterprise it is essential to have the backing of the workforce for anything of this kind. The knowledge that representatives have given their support filters down. Otherwise rumours and stories develop and there will be antagonism towards new kinds of training. By refusing this simple little amendment the Minister is making it unnecessarily difficult to get new training under way. It asks simply for consultation and not for powers.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not hate trade unions. I think that there is a time and a place for everything and that trade unions provide a valuable service at the right time and in the right place. However, this is not it. I understand exactly why the noble Baroness speaks about trade unions in such glowing terms and I know that she really believes it. However, we have already tried with trade unions and it has not worked. They have not always proved themselves to be entirely responsible.
The noble Baroness said that this is a minor amendment. It is so minor that it is almost unnecessary. We have said that the Secretary of State will consult and I believe that that is good enough.
Lord Rochester: Paragraph 3(1)(c) of the new clause in Amendment No. 57 states:
"An industrial training board shall consist of such other persons (if any) whom it appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate to appoint in addition to those appointed by virtue of paragraph (b) above".
Can the Minister assure us that people who are professional trainers will be considered as possible members of such boards?
Lord Strathclyde: We are generally looking at that sort of proposal in a positive way.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The Committee will not be surprised to know that I do not find the Minister's response to this amendment satisfactory. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, this is an

899
extremely modest amendment. I drafted it thinking that perhaps it was so modest it might commend itself to the Government because it says:
"shall consult with those organisations which appear to him to be representative of the employees in the industry".
That gives the Secretary of State a great deal of latitude as to the organisations which he considers suitable and which he will approach. Of course, the final decision on appointment is left with the Secretary of State.
I really do not understand how this amendment can be opposed except by a government who are quite oblivious to the views of the workforce and in opposition to any views which might be voiced by trade unions or organisations representative of the staff and employees concerned.
I believe that this is a quite incredible response to a very modest suggestion. Although I shall not press the amendment at this hour of the night, I believe that we shall have to think about this matter again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, the involvement of the workforce and its willing participation and co-operation as regards training at workplace level is terribly important. If the organisations representative of the workforce are being deliberately excluded by the Government, it is quite likely that the schemes will not effectively get off the ground no matter what the Government may tell us about them. I shall withdraw the amendment but we really must look at this matter.
Amendment No. 58, as an amendment to Amendment No. 57, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 57 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Power to make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 16, line 36, leave out ("10") and insert ("6, 7(1), 8 to 10, (:Exemption of Sikhs from requirement to wear safety helmets on construction sites)").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 60 and 64. The amendments in this group are purely technical or consequential on other amendments, making some minor changes to parts of the Bill which relate to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 59 is intended mainly to ensure that the new exemption we are giving turban-wearing Sikhs from forthcoming requirements to wear head protection on construction sites can be implemented swiftly in Northern Ireland on a par with Great Britain. Similar requirements on safety helmets are to be introduced in Northern Ireland, and it is desirable in principle to provide a similar exemption for turban-wearing Sikhs.
I understand that at present there are believed to be relatively few Sikhs in the construction industry in Northern Ireland, but of course this may change, and in any event it does not seem to be a point on which a geographical distinction should be made. The amendment therefore enables corresponding provisions to be made for Northern Ireland in the quickest and most convenient way.
Amendment No. 60 corrects a technical error in the definition of Northern Ireland subordinate legislation; and Amendment No. 64 removes a potential ambiguity in Schedule 7 (Repeals) which might have led people to misinterpret the Northern Ireland legal position. I reiterate that these amendments raise no new issues of principle and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 16, line 46, leave out from ("any") to end of line and insert ("statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 made under such an Order as is mentioned in paragraph (a).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 33, line 41, at end insert—
("INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ACT 1982 (C.10)
28A. In paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 (persons entitled to vote in connection with a levy), for the words from "sub-paragraph (a)" to "that sub-paragraph" substitute "sub-paragraph (1)(b) of paragraph 3 above".").
On Question, amendment, agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64:
Page 34, line 5, at end insert—

("1916 c. 68.

New Ministries and Secretaries Act 1916.

The whole Act.").

Page 36, line 25, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 29(1) so far as relating to the Industrial Training Act 1982.").

Page 39, line 7, column 3, leave out ("subsection (5)") and insert (", in subsection (5), the words from "except for the purpose" onwards.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): Before calling Amendment No. 65 I must draw attention to the incorrect wording of paragraph (1) which should read:
("Appointments to industrial training boards
.—(1) The amendments by this Act of paragraph 3 and 6 of Schedule 1 to the Industrial Training Act 1982 shall not apply to an industrial training board during any period during which any member of the board appointed before the passing of this Act remains in office by virtue of that appointment.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 41, line 39, at end insert—
("Appointments to industrial training boards
.—(1) The amendments by this Act of paragraph 3 and 6 of Schedule 1 to the Industrial Training Act 1982 shall not apply to an industrial training board during any period during which any member of the board appointed before the passing of this Act remains in office by virtue of that appointment.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be taken as precluding the Secretary of State during any such period from making appointments to the board in accordance with that Schedule as amended by this Act where they are to take effect at any time after the end of that period.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 69:
Page 18, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) section (Exemption of Sikhs from requirement to wear safety helmets on constructions sites) and (Protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with wearing of safety helmets);")
Page 18, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) sections (Consultation in connection with industrial training orders), (Transfer of assets or staff of industrial training boards) and (Consultation of industrial training boards);")
Page 18, line 10, leave out (", 27 and 28") and insert ("and 27 to 28A")
Page 18, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) pararaph 1A of Schedule 5 and section 20(4) so far as relating thereto;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 70:
Line 11, after ("Commission;") insert ("to make further provision with respect to industrial training boards;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  BOPHUTHATSWANA: ELECTION
  BOPHUTHATSWANA: ELECTION
  CHINESE BONDS: REDEMPTION ARRANGEMENTS
  CHINESE BONDS: REDEMPTION ARRANGEMENTS
  SEXUAL LIFESTYLE SURVEY PROPOSAL
  SEXUAL LIFESTYLE SURVEY PROPOSAL
  HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT