Sitting of 11 December 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
    FRASERBURGH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Disabled People
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people he estimates could benefit from the sheltered placement scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): This year, about 6,700 people with severe disabilities are benefiting from the sheltered placement scheme.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that about 270,000 people with severe disabilities are in open employment, that another 100,000 are looking for employment and that that compares with only about 6,500 whom the hon. Gentleman says are being offered opportunities in the sheltered placement scheme? In view of the success that Germany is having, with about 90,000 people in such a scheme, will the Minister consider introducing the levy system that exists in Germany to penalise employers who do not offer opportunities to disabled people?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the figures in the report "Employment and Handicap" which are encouraging. They show that substantial numbers of people with severe disabilities are in open employment. But we must continue to provide special placements for others. The hon. Gentleman refers to Germany. Although we are not persuaded that that would be the right approach, we are looking at the whole range of ways of supporting people with disabilities in employment.
    Mr. Thurnham: Was my hon. Friend encouraged by the survey showing that nearly 1 million people with substantial disabilities are in work? Does he agree that that adds support to the campaign for a new logo for firms employing disabled people?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We think that the most effective approach to supporting
    800
    people—there is no disagreement in the House about the importance of helping people with disabilities into employment—is through persuasion and encouragement. The initiative to which my hon. Friend refers is important and we hope that many companies will take it up.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he plans to hold discussions with the Trades Union Congress about current unemployment trends.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I have discussed various matters with the TUC on a number of occasions, including at the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. Thompson: In view of the new consensus thinking in the Government, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider encouraging the Prime Minister to advocate urgent talks with the TUC because of the potential increase in unemployment and the problems that we have had in the past 11 years with unemployment?
    Mr. Howard: There is no evidence that the TUC has an agreed policy on the matter. It certainly did not make plain any such agreed policy at the recent meeting of the NEDC to which I referred. If anyone has any specific proposals to put forward in relation to unemployment, I shall be happy to consider them.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to discuss with the TUC the social charter and how that might affect unemployment in the United Kingdom, particularly the high rate of tax that would have to be put on employees to pay for the type of social benefits that are available in Germany—at great cost to the people concerned and the companies which employ them?
    Mr. Howard: I have held discussions with representatives of the TUC on the European Commission's social action programme. I am afraid that the representatives who attended the meeting seemed oblivious of the extra costs—in excess of £3 billion a year—which would be a consequence of only the part-time and working-time directives that are being put forward by the Commission, and of the loss of jobs that those directives would undoubtedly cause.
    Mr. Leighton: Unemployment has risen for seven consecutive months and after 11 years of Conservative rule the country is being forced into deep recession. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is conclusive evidence of the failure of Conservative policy? Is he aware that instead of our entry to the exchange rate mechanism being a solution to it all, it is likely to inflict an extra 1 million unemployed on this country?
    Mr. Howard: No. The hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Employment, knows very well that we have 2 million more jobs in this country now than we did in 1979, unemployment is 45 per cent. lower than it was in 1986 and we have one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the European Community. Those matters are worthy more of congratulation than of the criticism that characterised the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear in any discussions that he may hold with the Trades Union Congress that, now that we are members of the exchange rate mechanism, excessive wage increases are the fastest possible way to increase unemployment?
    Mr. Howard: The exchange rate mechanism makes it absolutely clear that employers must keep all costs rigorously under control and their labour costs are an impor-tant component. Therefore, it is extremely important that all who are concerned in wage negotiations should think carefully about the consequences of their actions and think to the future, not simply to what might happen in the short term.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Secretary of State's protestations about all that the Government have done are right, yet the unemployment rate goes up on Thursday, as most hon. Members believe it will, will he say that he is still intent on making £365 million worth of cuts in employment training and training for the long-term unemployed in the next financial year? Will he, instead, ensure that more money goes towards training for the long-term unemployed?
    Mr. Howard: I have said that unemployment is likely to continue to go up over the next few months. I have also said that we have been reviewing the best way of helping the unemployed back into jobs, which is not always through employment training. We can offer a great deal of help in other ways, which is why we propose to make up to an additional 100,000 places available in job clubs and through the job interview guarantee scheme to help people back into work as soon as possible.

    Part-time and Temporary Work
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of his Department's survey into the attitudes of British business men towards European Community proposals on part-time and temporary work.
    Mr. Howard: The consultation exercise showed clearly that the vast majority of companies and business organisations that responded recognise that the European Commission's proposals will add very significantly to their costs and will therefore reduce their ability to create and sustain jobs.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, under those proposals, 1·75 million part-time workers who earn less than £46 a week will be required to pay national insurance? How could anybody, employers or anyone else, support such mean measures? What is the Labour party's position on that?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party, in its blind devotion to the social action programme regardless of its consequences, seems to have forgotten totally its repeatedly proclaimed devotion to the cause of the low-paid, who would suffer most from the Commission's proposals.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Secretary of State had any feedback from the Confederation of British Industry and employers' organisations about the proposed EC regulations on night working restrictions? Is he aware that
    802
    3 million people in the United Kingdom work night hours, and that the restrictions will make matters difficult for some traditional industries, particularly in rural districts, where night working is an essential part of the regime?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I welcome his support. His party is not renowned for its determination to stand up to proposals emanating from the European Commission. I hope that we can derive some confidence from his words that the Liberal Democrats will agree with our efforts, supported by the CBI and other organisations, to resist those extremely damaging proposals.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this issue highlights the necessity of having a workable and enforceable definition of subsidiarity at the heart of the Community's constitution, so that matters that have to be determined at a European level are limited to those which need to operate across boundaries?
    Mr. Howard: In principle, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. But he should not underestimate the difficulties involved in achieving a satisfactory definition of the term.

    Employment Medical Advisory Service
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the staff of the employment medical advisory service, within the Health and Safety Executive.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Staffing is an operational matter for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, which are free to deploy their resources as they choose within an overall funding level agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The Commission's plan of work for 1990–91 includes a targeted increase in EMAS staff in post from 134 to 146.
    Mr. Eastham: During the past 10 years there have been serious cuts in the employment medical advisory service, considering that an average 8,000 deaths a year are due to occupational diseases. Why were there 79 doctors in 1979 and, in March 1990, only 44? The same applies to nurses in the occupational service: there were 87 in 1979 and only 49 in March 1990. Why do not the Government increase the priority given to this serious matter?
    Mr. Forth: My Department acknowledges the expertise and independence of the Health and Safety Executive and Commission and I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that view. If he does, he should approach the executive and ask it why these numbers have changed. He will be told that it appraised the use of its resources and redeployed them in a way that it considered more effective to tackle the problems that the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the matter in that light, to acknowledge the independence and expertise of this excellent body and to understand why the changes have been made.

    Tourism
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to replace section 4 grants for tourism.
    Mr. Forth: There are no such plans. I have no reason to believe that there is any need in England for a scheme of Government assistance specifically targeted on tourism projects.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only the tourist industries of Wales and Scotland but those of many other countries in the EC which enjoy a much more beneficial climate continue to be grant-aided? Why is England being discriminated against in this way?
    Mr. Forth: The United Kingdom glories in great variety in its arrangements. The Government have long recognised that the needs of Wales and Scotland differ from those of England—that has been acknowledged throughout the House for many years.
    The record shows the success that England has had in attracting tourists. The United Kingdom is the fifth greatest tourist destination in the world. England continues to attract tourists and a level of investment in tourist-related projects to a degree that suggests that any help from the taxpayer would be inappropriate.
    Mr. Meale: Why will not the Government change their position? In Mansfield 190,000 customers of the electricity board are still cut off because of the bad weather, as are tens of thousands of other homes throughout the country. How will we rebuild our communities unless we get grant aid to attract tourism and other forms of employment to our areas?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman should be worried that an influx of tourists today and tomorrow would overload the electricity system even more and cause his constituents great difficulty.

    Norfolk and Waveney TEC
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received from Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council.
    Mr. Jackson: I have recently received and approved Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council's corporate and business plans, and I congratulate it on them. The TEC started operations on 12 November.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that a key priority of this TEC is encouraging enterprise and small businesses in an area where 80 per cent. of businesses employ fewer than 25 people? Does he agree, given the new funding arrangements, that this TEC will be ideally placed to play a major part in sustaining the enterprise culture in Norfolk and Suffolk?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most encouraging developments in the past decade has been the great growth of local enterprise initiatives, including those in my hon. Friend's part of the world. We need to achieve better co-ordination of and focus on all the efforts that are being made and, of course, the role of the training and enterprise councils in that will be important. I note the importance that the Norfolk and Waveney TEC attaches to that theme.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a great many business people in the Norwich area are involving themselves in the Norfolk and Waveney training
    804
    and enterprise council? Will he confirm that that council is in the lead in a programme that is already well ahead of schedule, thanks to this excellent Government initiative?
    Mr. Jackson: Since I came to my present post in July I have travelled up and down the country visiting training and enterprise councils. I am afraid that I have not visited the one in Norfolk, but I was in Suffolk last week. I was enormously struck by the amount of commitment and enthusiasm from senior business people. That is one of the most hopeful developments on the current training scene.

    Employment Trends
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what trends are identifiable in the total number of people employed in (a) the public service and (b) the wealth-creating part of the private sector.
    Mr. Jackson: In mid-1989 there were 20·2 million people employed in the private sector, an increase of 3·6 million or 21 per cent. since 1983; and 6·1 million were employed in the public sector, a decrease of 0·9 million o r 13 per cent. since 1983.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the welcome trends that he has just announced would rapidly evaporate if the Opposition came to office, because their policies inevitably mean greater burdens on private industry and greater bureaucracy in the public sector?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition have not yet grasped the secret of business success.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware that every week about 400 men and women lose their jobs in the textile and clothing industry? What are the Government doing to ensure that if there is any desperate effort to renegotiate GATT, the British textile and clothing industry will not be sold down the river and again seen as expendable by the Government? What will he do to safeguard employment in British industries to ensure that there are no job losses on that scale in the coming year?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman illustrates what I said in my answer to the previous question: the Labour party does not understand what makes for growth in business. Protectionism does not create growth. We have to focus on the increase in employment that is taking place and the opportunities that are being presented. There are now 2 million more people at work in Britain than there were in 1979. That would not be assisted by protectionism.

    Long-term Unemployed
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he has announced in the last six months to improve the provision of services to the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Howard: On 8 November I announced that next year my Department will provide up to 100,000 additional opportunities for long-term unemployed people through programmes such as job club and the job interview guarantee scheme. I also announced new flexibilities for training and enterprise councils to make employment training more responsive to individual and labour market needs. These are in addition to the five-point plan that I

    805
    announced in April, which ensures that the employment service's advice and guidance services are better able to help unemployed people back to work.
    Mr. Brown: Although what my right hon. and learned Friend has announced is welcome, is not the most important point that the number of long-term unemployed has been reduced by 850,000 over the past four and a half years?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is certainly an extremely important point. It is also important to remember that more than half the people who are currently losing their jobs get back into work within three months. That is a measure of the help that we can give such people and we hope in future to be able to give them even more.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that the creation of long-term unemployed people by child labour, lack of health and safety standards and lack of trade union rights in other countries would be quite wrong? Does he further agree that the Government should be concerned that textile jobs that are facing such competition should be preserved through the general agreement on tariffs and trade? If those talks collapse the jobs should be protected by the preservation of the multi-fibre arrangement. If not, we cannot use the usual platitude, "a level playing field" because it is savagely unfair competition. Our workers deserve the chance of a decent wage and a decent job.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealt with that matter a few moments ago in answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). We do not raise our people's living standards by engaging in protectionism. The free exchange of goods and services is most likely to increase the British people's standard of living in future.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that too high a proportion of the long-term unemployed are over 50 and will he reconfirm that his Department is making every effort to ensure that employers do not just leap to the assumption that older workers are somehow finished?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. I assure him that we do whatever we can to achieve the objective that he described. In particular, the employment service always queries any such arbitrary restriction imposed as a condition on a job when that is drawn to its attention.
    Mr. Fatchett: Now that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that unemployment will increase during the next few months, will he acknowledge that the number of long-term unemployed will also increase during the same period? Is not that trend of increasing unemployment likely to continue while the Government have only one weapon against inflation—the use of unemployment, with the economic and personal waste that that entails, to fight their own economic failures?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. There is no question of using unemployment as a means of dealing with inflation. If the Opposition have any credible policy to bring down inflation, the Government look forward to hearing of it.

    Tourism
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in the number of employees in tourism-related employment between 1981 and 1989.
    Mr. Forth: The number of employees in tourism-related industries in Great Britain increased by an estimated 219,000 between June 1981 and June 1989, an increase of nearly 20 per cent.
    Mr. Harris: Do not those figures show the importance of the tourist industry particularly to areas such as Cornwall? Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite having had two good seasons, partly because of the wonderful summers of the past couple of years, there is no room for complacency and that if we are to compete and maintain such growth we need to offer ever-higher standards and ever-better value for money and increase the amount of promotion?
    Mr. Forth: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is well placed to make a judgment on such matters. All hon. Members must pay tribute to those in the tourism-related industries for their ingenuity, activity and quality of service, which have resulted in a constant increase in the volume of visitors and in revenue earned. We in the Department will do everything that we can to support and encourage those industries, which I expect will continue to grow and provide employment and prosperity for a long time to come.
    Mrs. Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that if more emphasis was placed on attracting business and conference visitors there might be fewer seasonal changes in employment? One would hope that they would come all the year round and spend more money, as is traditionally the case.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. That aspect of the industry is being developed rapidly in many parts of the country, whether my hon. Friend's region or my part of the west midlands. Increased investment is leading to the development and growth of an expert industry and we can confidently expect to attract more high-quality conference business in competition with other countries.

    Training
    Mr. Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of current total expenditure by the Government on training; and what were the comparable figures for 1979.
    Mr. Howard: In the financial year 1978–79—the last complete year under the Labour Government—total Government expenditure on training was £377·3 million. Our planned expenditure in the current financial year is £2,704·5 million—well over two and a half times in real terms what the last Labour Government spent.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that not only has there been a dramatic increase in spending on training by the Government, but back in 1979 there was no youth training guarantee for school leavers, or guarantee of training for the long-term unemployed, and we did not have training and enterprise councils

    807
    coming on stream? Can my right hon. and learned Friend suggest any reason why anyone should listen to the Opposition when they failed the country so miserably?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and has identified three of the most telling reasons why this Government have made more advances in training than have ever been seen before in this country.
    Mr. Worthington: Why has no money been spent on training this year through the European social fund? The European year will run out in about a fortnight, but no decisions have yet been made on training schemes which should have started last January. Why have Scottish voluntary organisations such as Goodwill and the Scottish Association for Mental Health not yet been informed of European training funding which should have started in January?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. We are making some payments from the European social fund and certain of them relate to training. As I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows, payments were not made earlier because the money was not forthcoming from the fund until very late in the year and because the vast majority of the applications that we received were incorrectly completed and had to be returned to the applicants to be put into the correct form. As soon as we receive those applications in the correct form, payments will be made.
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in addition to the tremendous improvement in training expenditure by the Government, industry itself has responded positively to the greater control and power over training expenditure that my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors have permitted?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Industry is responding both in the amount of money that it is devoting to training, with current expenditure of about £20 billion per year, and in its unprecedented response to the training and enterprise councils initiative introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Twelve hundred business leaders throughout the country are joining the Government in an unprecedented partnership to revolutionise training attitudes.
    Mr. McLeish: It is nearly a year since the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was appointed Secretary of State for Employment. Why is £2 million per week being cut from the training budget, employment rising by 4,000 per week, and voluntary sector organisations throughout the country going out of business because of the Department's incompetence? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the country has no confidence in his ability to deliver any skills revolution?
    Mr. Howard: The skills revolution is under way—it is taking place. We are revolutionising attitudes to training both of individuals and of employers. The training and enterprise councils are encouraging employers all over the country, in the unprecedented partnership that I mentioned a few moments ago, to take their responsibili-ties much more seriously. We are in the van of some of the most far-seeing training initiatives to be found anywhere in the world.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It will take up time.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In view of your recent ruling on the tabling of questions, Mr. Speaker, is it in order for a member of the Labour Front Bench to circulate questions to be asked by other hon. Members?
    Mr. Speaker: I believe that that practice is occasionally common to both sides of the House.
    Mr. David Martin: In addition to paying tribute to employers for the role that they are playing, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there will be no going back to the policies of compulsion and direction that were evident in the years before 1979, which were so counter-productive and which the Government rightly reversed subsequently?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is typical of the Opposition to want to take us back to policies that failed in the past, the failure of which our present policies are designed to remedy.

    Wages Act
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been brought under part II of the Wages Act 1986 in the last period of 12 months for which figures are available.
    Mr. Forth: In the 12 months ending 30 November 1990, there were nine prosecutions under part II of the Wages Act 1986.
    Mr. Archer: Is the Minister aware of the report, "Crime without Punishment", by the Low Pay Unit, which reveals that there is fewer than one inspector per 5,000 establishments, that in 1989 fewer than 9 per cent. were visited in any way, and that of those visited more than a third failed to keep adequate records and nearly one third were paying rates below the statutory minimum? Is that an example of the Government's dedication to law enforcement?
    Mr. Forth: I wonder what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's dedication to the proceedings of Parliament is. We have already dealt with this question on 13 November in oral questions, on 22 October in an Adjournment debate, and in another place on 16 October. Opposition Members will therefore forgive me if I repeat to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what I have told his hon. Friends before—that we are not relying on a policy of prosecutions to make the work of the wages councils effective. We are relying, as the Labour Government did when they were in office, on a policy of information and guidance which we believe will be more effective. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is interested only in prosecutions—knowing his background, I hope that he is not—I can tell him that the number of new prosecutions now being undertaken is almost exactly the same as it was under the Labour Government of which he was a member.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that it does not necessarily follow that, because there have been no prosecutions, it is down to the inspectors? In this day and age, people are more informed of their rights. If employees

    809
    are worried about the implications of the Wages Act, why can they not write letters to people who can deal with that? I assume that people are happy with the way in which the Act is working.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. In his usual caring and compassionate way, he has put his finger on the answer. Working people are free, and should feel free, to inform the authorities whenever they believe that a violation is taking place. I share my hon. Friend's confidence that working people are fully capable of doing that.

    Footwear Industry
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to introduce to aid employment prospects in the footwear industry.
    Mr. Jackson: It is vital that industry should adapt to changing circumstances. The Department has given financial support to various training initiatives aimed at helping the footwear industry.
    Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern and anger at the Government's lacklustre approach to the footwear industry? Does he realise that 68,000 people were employed in that industry in 1979, but that by 1990 the figure had dropped to 45,000, a total of 900 jobs having been lost in the past year? As a matter of urgency, will he convene a meeting with representatives of employers and workers to fashion a common approach to the industry —before it is completely decimated? For the record, will he, also confirm that he is wearing shoes which were manufactured in Britain?
    Mr. Jackson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the footwear industry, especially in Leicester. I am not aware where my shoes came from, but I will have a look to check. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that he is doing any service to the industry that he seeks to represent by describing it in such poor terms. It might be relevant to point out that last year the value of footwear exports increased by 9 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must not narrow his focus. If he is interested in jobs, he ought to consider the wider situation in the east midlands, where the number of people in employment rose by 19 per cent. between 1983 and June 1990.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are new marketing opportunities for the British shoe industry in eastern Europe and that these must be developed? However, there is another side to the coin and there is considerable concern about the flood of cheap leather coming from eastern Europe. Will he guarantee to monitor the situation?
    Mr. Jackson: Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that Britain has to be part of a liberal international trading order, and we want to see an opening-up of trade with eastern Europe. However, if such trade is to open up and if we are to sell goods to those countries, we have to be prepared to buy goods from them. One of the goods that they are competitive at exporting is footwear. Of course we need to monitor the situation, but we must maintain an open market approach to eastern Europe.

    Manufacturing, West Midlands
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of jobs in manufacturing industry in the west midlands (a) in 1979, (b) in 1985 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Jackson: The numbers of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in the west midlands in June 1979, 1985 and 1990 were 985,000, 693,000 and 650,000, respectively.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister confirm that yet another example of the Government's appalling employment record is that in the west midlands—the heart of British manufacturing industry—there has been a fall in employment, skills and capacity of 36 per cent. since the Government took office? Are the Government the only organisation left who cannot understand that the loss of skill and capacity is the reason for such an appalling trade record?
    Mr. Jackson: I have already given the figures for our overall record. A total of 2 million more people are employed now than 10 years ago. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the fundamental importance of manufacturing industry, but we all have to recognise that there is a worldwide trend towards reduced employment in manufacturing. It is happening in every country's economy due to capital intensity and new technologies. We have to take note of the increase in productivity in manufacturing. It has increased by 60 per cent. in Britain in the past 10 years—the fastest increase in any industrial country.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the manufacturing jobs have shifted from the west midlands to the east midlands because the east midlands has a superb work force, excellent industrial relations and welcomes inward investment? Does he agree that the arrival of Toyota in my constituency will have a tremendously beneficial effect on the area and is leading the revival of manufacturing industry in the country?
    Mr. Jackson: The west midlands has done well, but so has the east midlands. Telford, in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), has become a major manufacturing centre and has experienced a great boom since 1979. There has been an increase of 14,000 jobs in Telford in the past 10 years, mostly in manufacturing. It also includes some 21 Japanese companies.

    Training
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the level of training in British industry.
    Mr. Howard: A discussion on training will take place at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 9 January.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister take an early opportunity to talk seriously to the Trades Union Congress about training? Is he aware that training is still at a dismally low level in this country compared with all our industrial competitors? Is he also aware that we are in

    811
    the middle of a massive recession which will get much worse and that employers are already pulling out of training? What does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman were more interested in facts than fantasy, he would know that one of the most encouraging features of the most recent Confederation of British Industry survey was that, notwithstanding the difficulties that many of them are currently facing, more employers intend to increase their investment in training and innovation than to reduce it. We would not have seen that in the past, certainly not when the Labour party was in office.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the TUC, will he remind it that one of the best unions for training is the electricians' trade union which has its training headquarters in my constituency and, rather interestingly, is not part of the TUC? Does not that suggest that the TUC should pull its socks up?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visited the training headquarters of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union recently. lt has much to show the TUC and a good deal from which the TUC could learn.

    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if at his next meeting with the chairman of the Health and Safety Executive he will discuss establishment levels in the nuclear installations inspectorate.
    Mr. Forth: The HSE's staffing requirements are reviewed annually as part of the public expenditure survey. On 1 November 1990 there were 248 staff in the HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate, of whom 159 were nuclear inspectors—an increase in inspectors of some 60 per cent. since 1987. Current plans are to recruit to a level of 172 inspectors.
    Mr. Dalyell: Given the clean bill of health that the nuclear installations inspectorate has given Dounreay and in view of events in the middle east, should not the Government consider reversing the rundown of Dounreay?
    Mr. Forth: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the status of a nuclear installation is not a matter for me or for my Department; my responsibilities are for the Health and Safety Executive. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who understands these matters well, I can say to him only that I will pass his comments to my colleague at the Department of Energy so that he may have a response from that Department.

    Youth Training
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had recently with representatives of further education colleges and youth training providers to identify and discourage any duplication of waste in staff, premises, equipment and operational costs.
    Mr. Howard: I have frequent discussions with those groups. The introduction of training and enterprise councils will lead to greater co-ordination and streamlin-ing of further education and training provision.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Is not it the case that where training vouchers are to be introduced next April, students will for the first time be able to shop around between different educational and training establishments? Does my right hon. and learned Friend welcome that?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The training vouchers, which will be introduced in 11 pilot schemes from next April, are just one of the initiatives in which we lead the world. The vouchers will for the first time give young people buying power to ensure that they receive training of the highest quality. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that important initiative.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Gulf Crisis
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) of 13 November, Official Report, column 446, if he will specify those figures which he posesses relating to oil stocks, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide which differ from those given by King Hussein, showing in each case the comparable figures and the source for those which he uses.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): No, Sir. The calculations rest on assumptions about the consequences of a conflict in the Gulf which, by their nature, are not quantifiable. The best way to avoid any adverse consequences is for Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations resolutions in full.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not the spine-chilling truth that no mining engineer, no scientist and no politician knows for certain what will occur if 300 deep-mined oil wells are detonated? In those circumstances, might not the fires rage for months, if not years, in a fashion quite outside human experience? In view of that, should not the damage to the planet, let alone the human slaughter and the Arab ecological disaster, rule out any talk of a military option?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman says, no one can be absolutely and precisely certain about the outcome. In so far as it is possible to make an assessment, we see no reason to agree with any of the views put forward thus far as to what the outcome might be.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week I visited the Council for Higher Education in Amman, where the calculations were carried out for King Hussein? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the horrors of war, whether human or environmental, should be made abundantly plain to Saddam Hussein in particular?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that, but, on the assumptions that King Hussein used, we believe that some of the difficulties to which he referred would not be precisely as described.
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister take time today to read the recently published report of the Association of London Authorities—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Butcher.
    Mr. Butcher: While my right hon. Friend is considering the risk of an ecological disaster from airborne pollutants in the middle east, will he bear in mind that there is a risk from Saddam Hussein himself? He has already used chemical weapons, he has developed illegal biological weapons, and he may soon possess nuclear weapons. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to safeguard the security of Iraq's neighbours is for the United Nations to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not keep one piece of Kuwaiti territory that he has gained by armed aggression?
    The Prime Minister: The risk to which my hon. Friend refers is there. It is for that reason that there is a most remarkable degree of international consensus that the Security Council resolutions must be met in full.

    Engagements
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall today be having further meetings. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Brown: In the course of his busy day, will the Prime Minister consider selling to me any of his personal possessions—one of his houses would be very nice—at 60 per cent. of the true market value? If he is not willing to do that with his personal possessions, why is he willing to do it with the nation's?
    The Prime Minister: I have only one house, and I propose to stay there and keep it.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the denationalisation of the electricity industry has been a great success and, furthermore, will ensure that Britain develops as a real share-owning and property-owning democracy?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The offer has been a huge success—clearly the most successful ever—and oversubscribed 10 times. It shows clearly that people are prepared and willing to become share owners in a share-owning democracy.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, as a result of the Government's underpricing of electricity shares, the British taxpayer stands to lose £3 billion or more?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has said something like that about each privatisation. Every privatisation has been a success. Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to renationalise?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Kinnock: I will, as Prime Minister after the next general election—do not worry about that. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. How can the Leader of the Opposition answer with such shouting going on?
    Mr. Kinnock: Selling public assets for 40 per cent. less than they are worth is, by anyone's judgment, a national scandal. Today, with the electricity sale, the British people are being subjected to a national scandal and a great swindle by their own Government. Any Government who inflict that on their own people are guilty of infamous incompetence or great dishonesty, or both.
    The Prime Minister: I reject absolutely the right hon. Gentleman's charge, and I repeat the question—will he renationalise?
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister provide me and the British people with a justification for selling off a national asset for £3 billion less than it is worth and, in the course of that, showing the dishonesty of the Government and the willingness of the Government to swindle their own people?
    The Prime Minister: There are two points in' answer to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the share price absolutely reflects the aim of getting value for the taxpayer. Secondly, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, what on earth was the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) saying when he made the prediction that we would not succeed in privatising the electricity industry?
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep disappointment in the north-west that Manchester is not the venue for the Olympic games in 1996? Will he bear in mind that yesterday Manchester launched its bid to be the venue in the year 2000? As I expect that my right hon. Friend will still be Prime Minister at that time, may I have an assurance from him that the Government will totally support the British bid for the Olympics in 10 years' time?
    The Prime Minister: Not only that—I look forward to attending them.
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Archer: Reverting to the loss to the Exchequer from the mismanagement in marketing electricity shares, when 3,500 hospital beds are out of Commission because of underfunding in the health service, has the right hon. Gentleman reflected that if a local council had made a similar pig's ear of its affairs councillors would face personal surcharges? What sanction does he suggest for incompetence among Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: In my view, an offer that is oversubscribed 10 times is a success and not a pig's ear.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Haemophilia Society is one of my constituents? Has my right hon. Friend read the

    815
    Adjournment debate that I initiated on 15 October, and when does he expect to be in a position to act on this deep human tragedy?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) raised this problem the other day. I can now tell the House that the Government have been examining this matter and have been able to agree in principle to proposals been put forward by the plaintiffs' lawyers. Provided that the proposals are formally approved by individual plaintiffs —and, in the case of minors, by the courts—they should provide a basis for bringing the matter to an agreement successfully and soon. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will inform the House of the details. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will welcome this development, as I do.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: When the Prime Minister was elected leader of the Conservative party, the House was aware that during his campaign he had referred to the difficulties facing teachers, and especially their low morale. As he is his own man, what does he intend to do to change policy and to increase morale among teachers?
    The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that morale in the teaching profession is immensely important. It depends on a whole range of factors—not only salaries, but on job opportunities, the quality and nature of education, and the opportunities for advance-ment within the profession. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is examining all these matters.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Paice: Referring back to the earlier questions about electricity privatisation, is not it clear that the lesson from the many privatisation issues in the past few years is that what the public really want when they refer to "public ownership" are share certificates, property deeds and pensions with their own personal names on them? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is true public ownership and that the accumulation of personal wealth which it creates will bode well for the economic future of this country?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is also a matter of some importance that the sale of the 12 discos will raise £8 billion.
    Mr. Spearing: Has the Prime Minister seen the document sent to the President of the European Council on Friday by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl? Does he agree that it contains proposals for adding security, citizenship and foreign affairs to the competence of the European Communities, together with co-legislation of the Parliament and majority voting on all but a few issues? Does he further agree that that creates even
    816
    more centralism than exists at the moment, thus increasing the democratic deficit? As the documents were placed in the Library after the House had debated these matters last Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman tell his colleagues in Rome next week that such matters and the way in which the President can introduce business at such late notice is unacceptable and only increases the democratic deficit?
    The Prime Minister: I share the underlying concern that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the shortness of notice in such matters. In another sphere, I have raised this issue at ECOFIN on a number of occasions. Decisions taken in the Community should be preceded by proper examination, proper costings and proper consideration. I shall certainly make that point.

    Environment
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to international co-operation on environ-mental issues.
    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom plays an active part in the work of many international bodies dealing with environmental issues. We are fully involved in the preparations for the 1992 United Nations conference on the environment and development in Brazil, which includes negotiations on a framework convention on climate change and on biological diversity.
    Mr. Hunter: Although I welcome such international co-operation and the Government's part in it, will my right hon. Friend be on his guard against wasteful duplication and abuse of taxpayers' money? In that context, will he look at the work of the European Environmental Statistics Office, the European Environmental Agency, the European Environmental Monitoring and Information System and the European Environmental CORINE Programme? International co-operation is desirable, but the duplication of bureaucracy in the EEC is not.
    The Prime Minister: Environmental care is a matter of great importance to the Government, but my hon. Friend is surely right to draw attention to the dangers of duplicated expenditure. I shall bear in mind what he says.
    Mr. Wigley: lf, as is widely reported in the European newspapers, Chancellor Kohl and other leaders are likely to ask at the forthcoming conference in Rome for a level of elected regional government to be developed within Europe as a counterbalance to centralisation, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking not to rule out the idea out of hand?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter which may conceivably be raised at the weekend. Certainly, I have had no notice that it will be raised. The matter will need to be carefully examined.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. James Pawsey. Mr. Pawsey?
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harry Ewing.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful both to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).

    817
    May I take the Prime Minister back to his first answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) when the right hon. Gentleman talked about the military option in the Gulf? Do the Government have any contingency plans to reintroduce conscription and national service to sustain the military option in the Gulf?
    Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Under the conventions of the House, should not any question that you call be related to question 8?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is always so helpful. However I called question 9. I think that technically the hon. Gentleman may be right but I turned a blind eye to that in view of the absence of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey).
    The Prime Minister: I understand the important question that the hon. Gentleman asked about the Gulf which as he knows, is a matter that we debate frequently in the House.

    Statutory Instruments, &c.
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Ordered,
    That the Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1773) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the Income Support (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1776) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1775) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the Family Credit (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1774) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

    Ordered,
    That the Representation of the People Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee—[Mr. Wood.]

National Health Service Trusts
3.31 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. A week ago today the Secretary of State for Health announced his intentions to make 56 hospitals into self-governing trusts. In response to my supplementary question, he referred to
"The instruments to set up the trusts, which we shall lay today and tomorrow".
It is now clear that that statement was wrong in two respects.
First, a week after the statement none of the orders has yet been published. Secondly, I am informed by the Secretary of State's office that it is not his intention to lay the orders before Parliament. They are executive orders and it is not required that they be laid before Parliament. However, if he wished, the Secretary of State could lay the orders before Parliament by Royal Command to allow them to be debated.
I submit that two points of order arise from those errors of fact. First, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to correct last week's record in Hansard and to advise us when he expects to publish the orders and whether he intends to lay them before Parliament. Secondly, if the Secretary of State does not intend to lay the orders before Parliament, it is essential that he advises the House about how the Government propose to permit the House to debate them. They raise matters of principle of considerable importance. They raise matters of particular controversy in the constituencies of many hon. Members. It would be an outrage if the orders were not submitted to any form of parliamentary approval. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I invite the Secretary of State to tell us when the orders will be published and whether Parliament will be allowed to debate them.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): With respect, that was one of the most footling points of order that I have ever heard. It has been explained ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the Secretary of State so that he could give an explanation; the point of order was for me.
Mr. Waldegrave: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
As has been explained three times to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), by a slip of the tongue, It used the word "laid" instead of the word "made". The hon. Gentleman, having had the benefit of being on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, will know that, owing to the exercising of powers conferred by section 5(1) and paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6(2)(d) of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, these are statutory instruments. The hon. Gentleman knows that at least as well as I do, and probably better.
The Opposition will have plenty of time to debate these matters. The statutory instruments are now being printed, and will of course be published before they come into force, in an entirely normal way.
Mr. Cook: I regret the tone in which the Secretary of State has responded to the raising of what many hon. Members will recognise as a serious issue.
Closing the discussion on last week's statement, you Mr. Speaker, said:
820
"I am sure that there will be future occasions on this important matter."—[Official Report, 4 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 175 and 181.]
I think that the whole House would agree—certainly the Opposition would—that there should be future occasions for us to debate the matter. [AN HON. MEMBER: "There will."] I hear someone say, "There will." If the Secretary of State does not intend to lay the orders before the House —as he could, if he chose, by Royal Command—what arrangements will he and the Government make to enable the House to debate this important matter? Or do they really intend to hand over 56 hospitals to self-governing trusts while giving constituency Members no opportunity to comment?
Mr. Waldegrave: These are matters for the Leader of the House. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman seems to be scraping the barrel. He is trying to make a point out of a slip of the tongue which has already been explained to him. I know that he can do better and I hope that he will when we debate the matter in the months ahead.
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Some colleagues and I spent all of the Saturday morning following last week's announcement collecting signatures from people protesting against what is happening in my constituency and in St. Helens. What parliamentary occasion will I have on which to present those signatures—1,000 of them—to the Secretary of State for Health? It does not look as though I shall have any opportunity to do so.
Mr. Speaker: I must not advise the hon. Gentleman on tactics, but, if I may make a suggestion, the Christmas Adjournment motion would provide one such opportun-ity. There are, of course, other opportunities for hon. Members to present petitions.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday I asked the Leader of the House exactly the same question, and received what can only be described as a difficult if courteous reply, suggesting that there would be no such debate. Now the Secretary of State comes before the House, having misled us—I put it as bluntly as that—on the last occasion, when I was here but did not catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. His answer today suggests that he could not care less about the rights of my constituents.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will call the hon. Gentleman, as he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Mr. Cryer: As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is not an inconsequential matter. It was agreed at the conference of Commonwealth countries on delegated legislation that it was outrageous for the House to introduce primary legislation enabling Ministers simply to produce instru-ments without being required to lay them before the House. Surely it would help—although I know that it is not your direct responsibility—if you drew the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee. With the present Government producing more than 2,500 statutory instruments a year—more than any other Government —it is time that we stopped this loophole for arrogant and arbitrary government.
Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one matter at a time. I remember very well the conference of which the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished chairman and I recollect the discussion as well. I think that it is for him to draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are to have an important debate this afternoon. May I suggest that we draw to a close this idiotic example of a leadership bid by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and get on with that business?
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the opting-out proposals are to be contained in statutory instruments, may I ask for your guidance? Statutory instruments are usually debated after 10 pm and the debate lasts for one and a half hours. Will the statutory instrument be a collective measure covering all 57 hospitals affected by the proposal? If so, do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it would be desirable to have a full day's debate on it?
Mr. Speaker: Such matters are best raised with the Leader of the House at business questions on Thursday.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your advice that this is an issue for the Leader of the House, but I must say, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, that people will think it extraordinary that, when the wishes of local people about the opting out of hospitals have been ignored, it is apparently also the Government's intention to prevent a debate on the matter in the House. The Secretary of State shakes his head in disagreement. I hope that he will ensure that we have a debate in Government time. I place on record the Opposition's determination to press the Government for a debate in Government time on these important proposals.

The Gulf
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 8781/90 on revision of the Community's financial perspective as a result of the Gulf crisis, and 8813/90 and 8823/90 on financial aid to the countries most directly affected by the Gulf crisis.]
Mr. Speaker: A large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 6 and 8 o'clock. I hope that those called before that time, or even after it, will bear that limit in mind in fairness to their colleagues.
3.41 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): It is right that the House should debate the Gulf crisis from time to time and that it should require the Government to keep it fully informed, and I have tried to respond to Opposition suggestions on the timing of statements as the situation has developed.
Today is an occasion to step back from immediate events, to look at the crisis as a whole and to consider what is at stake. One immediate event is wholly welcome, and that is the release of hostages which is now under way. The total British community in Iraq and Kuwait was just over 1,100 at the time of President Saddam Hussein's last announcement. Aircraft have been chartered from Iraqi Airways to bring our people home and we have taken space on charters organised by others. The community were informed of arrangements by our embassies and announcements over the BBC World Service.
Ninety-three people arrived early yesterday morning, picked up in Frankfurt by the British Airways aircraft that had been waiting in Amman. A further 11 arrived later in the morning by way of Rome. More than 380 arrived at Gatwick yesterday evening by Iraqi Airways and a further 380 are expected this evening. They will be mainly members of the community from Kuwait who were being taken to Baghdad in two planes this morning by Iraqi Airways. Her Majesty's Government are bearing the full cost of chartering the Iraqi Airways aircraft. British Airways generously contributed the operating costs of its flight yesterday, leaving the Government to pay for fuel and war risk insurance. Other people are making their own way, using scheduled flights via Amman. The Government will meet the costs if travellers do not have recourse to funds and we shall organise further charters if necessary. We are strongly urging everyone to leave.
Our embassy in Baghdad will try to establish the exact whereabouts of all who remain. I believe that reception arrangements here have worked well and that co-operation between Government Departments, voluntary organisations and airport authorities has been good.
In two days from now, Her Majesty's ambassador in Kuwait will be the last remaining ambassador carrying on his duties in that country. Mr. Weston and his colleague Mr. Banks have been keen to stay at their posts, so long as by doing so they could give somehelp to our community in Kuwait. If, as I hope, that community—or all but a small minority who wish to stay—is able to return—is able to

823
return to Britain by way of Baghdad in the coming days, we shall work out with those two brave men how long they should stay. I thank them again for what they have done.
I will comment on the advice that we are giving to British communities in the Gulf region outside Iraq and Kuwait. We are talking of some 50,000 people, more than the community from any other country. At the beginning of the crisis we encouraged some thinning out, but many people have since, for understandable reasons, gone back. At the end of last month, we recommended that school children should not travel out to Bahrain, Qatar or the eastern province of Saudi Arabia for Christmas and that families should get together for the holiday in this country. We also advised that those dependants leaving the Gulf for Christmas should not return until the situation became clearer. We look carefully and constantly at that advice. It is our duty to give the communities the best possible advice, a responsibility which weighs heavily on us. We do not want to cause alarm, disrupt people's lives or separate families unnecessarily. But many British people live in countries which, in the event of conflict, would be at direct risk from Iraqi military action. We keep a close eye on the advice and, because of hon. Members' interest in their constituents, I shall keep the House fully informed of any changes in our advice.
President Saddam Hussein is now complying with one of the three main requirements of the Security Council. Attention can now focus on the other two requirements —the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the restoration of the legitimate Government. Ten days ago I was in New York to join in the last Security Council debate on the subject. It was a notable and dramatic occasion. The council adopted, with just two votes against, resolution 678, which empowers the international community to use "all necessary means" to secure compliance with its earlier resolutions if Iraq does not leave Kuwait on or before 15 January next year.
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose——
Mr. Hurd: May I just proceed a little further, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before I leave the subject of the use of force? The phrase "all necessary means" includes the use of force. Resolution 678 is not a call to arms or a timetable for military action. The resolution provides for what it calls a pause of goodwill. That was an idea of the Soviet Government. It gives Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to leave peacefully. We hope he takes it.
We support the United States initiative to make sure that Iraq's leaders hear the message loudly and clearly. We agree that, in the effort to avoid war, it is worth going that extra mile. I discussed how that might be done with Secretary Baker and the Foreign Ministers of the other permanent members of the Security Council while I was in New York on 29 November, just after the adoption of resolution 678. President Bush and Secretary Baker will not be bargaining. Their purpose is to speak plainly so that Iraq's leaders understand exactly what is required of them, not by America or Britain, but by the international community, and the consequences if they continue to defy those requirements.
There will be no concessions on the requirements of the Security Council, no partial solution or linkage to other issues. In the European Community last week we decided that the same message would be delivered to the Foreign
824
Minister of Iraq after his visit to Washington by the Presidency of the European Community, probably in Rome.
Mr. Dalyell: Does it bother the Foreign Secretary that one of the two countries that voted against the resolution was one which is nearest and stands to lose most—Yemen —whereas others such as Zaire, where I led the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation, made it quite clear that the crisis is all about lifting the ban on American aid to Zaire on civil rights grounds, not about the merits or demerits of the Gulf? Will the Foreign Secretary look critically at what the United Nations has done?
Mr. Hurd: The two members that voted against were Cuba and Yemen. I am not sure that Cuba is situated very close to the conflict. Yemen, as an Arab country, has been closely involved, but is not one of those countries closest to the conflict. As the hon. Member knows, the Arab countries closest to the conflict—Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates—are absolutely clear and solid on the matter. The hon. Member is not on a good argument.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd: I shall continue a little and then give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a minute.
Mr. Benn: I just want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one clear legal question.
Is it the Government's view that article 51, plus the resolution passed by the Security Council last Thursday, constitute authority for the use of force by the United States, Britain and others without returning to the Security Council or to the House of Commons?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, it is. We believed, and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen agreed, that article 51 and the original request from the Kuwaitis provided a legal basis; the argument was about whether there should be an additional political basis. That has been supplied by resolution 678.
We continue to read in the media that the unity of purpose in the coalition against aggression is disintegrat-ing. We have read such reports more or less continuously ever since the coalition was formed. Sometimes it is the Arabs in the coalition, sometimes it is the French or the Russians, and sometimes it is the Americans, who, according to the reports, are looking for some compromise that falls short of the requirements of the Security Council. Now, after these weeks, the House can judge for itself and see that that is not true. We are all working for a peaceful outcome. None of us is ready to settle for less than the Security Council requires.
As for linkage, it is common ground between most of us that we have long supported the idea of an international conference on the Arab-Israel problem. That support continues. A conference is a technique, not an end in itself. It needs willing participants if it is to get anywhere. The initiative—Jim Baker's initiative—taken by the United States Government with our support was designed to find a basis on which talks could take place between Israel and the Palestinians, with a view to a conference in due course. That was before the invasion of Kuwait. We believe that the Baker plan was a realistic effort. The invasion of Kuwait set back that search for peace and a settlement

825
between the Arabs and Israel, as did the partial support of the PLO for the invasion. We have no intention, however, of forgetting the injustices and insecurity that persist so long as there is no peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel problem.
Iraq under President Saddam Hussein has had and could have no useful contribution to make to this search for a peaceful settlement, but once the Iraqis' aggression against Kuwait has been reversed we can and shall again focus our efforts on the search for a peaceful settlement. I hope that the co-operation in recent months between the different countries of the coalition against the aggression will improve the prospects of success.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Given the emphasis on the need to find a peaceful settlement, why do the Government and President Bush appear so impatient with sanctions? Surely, even if they take more than a year to work, they are a much more effective, humane and peaceful means of bringing this man down than the sacrifice of even one British service man.
Mr. Hurd: I am just coming to that argument; it is a serious one and it needs to be dealt with.
I come now to the pressures that the international community—not just British and America—is exerting on Iraq. More than four months after the aggression, those pressures are all peaceful. The most important of them are sanctions, mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), and the build-up of allied forces representing the so-called military option. There are signs in Iraq that sanctions are having an effect. Basic foodstuffs have been rationed since September. But the Iraqi people are used to hardship. They endured eight years of one of the most bloody and futile wars since 1945 —the Iraq-Iran war. It must be questionable whether sanctions, even if applied over a long period, will undermine the resolve of Saddam Hussein to keep his grip on Kuwait.
Meanwhile—the point omitted by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—day by day Kuwait is being obliterated from the map. We can read what the hostages are saying as they come back and we can read the Amnesty report and listen to the Kuwaitis. There is no secret about what is happening. Whatever can be removed has been taken to Baghdad. Murder, torture and brutality have been commonplace, as the Amnesty report and later evidence shows. With each day that passes, the likelihood that we shall be able to restore Kuwait to its former position decreases. The Iraqi aim is clear. Iraq is out to eradicate Kuwait as an independent nation. We all welcome the return of foreign hostages from Iraq, as we have just done, but we should not forget the thousands of Kuwaitis who are virtually hostages and prisoners in their own city.
President Saddam Hussein's sophisticated war machine will continue to take advantage of the time allowed to improve its military position. There are now nearly 300,000 Iraqi troops and nearly 2,000 tanks in Kuwait, and work continues every day on improving the defences. Every delay risks increasing the casualties in an eventual conflict. Those are sobering facts which the House needs to take into account in assessing the situation.
Sir Alan Glyn: What will happen to the Iraqi civilians now in Kuwait? Will they be removed? I refer to civilians, not military personnel.
Mr. Hurd: If the Iraqi forces withdrew as the Security Council requires, I imagine that the civilians would be wise to follow them.
Mr. Gavin Strang: The Foreign Secretary has said that, because of the enormity of what is taking place in Kuwait, the British Government and other Governments are not inclined to allow sanctions to have a proper chance to work. What is happening in Kuwait is very disturbing, but it will be disastrous for the population of Kuwait if war breaks out there. That is the choice. As the impact of sanctions was always to be on the Iraq Government's overseas earnings from oil, from which they obtain 95 per cent. of their income, it is surely reasonable to allow the sanctions a proper chance to work. That will certainly not happen as a result of the months in which they have so far been applied.
Mr. Hurd: It depends what the hon. Gentleman regards as a proper chance. By 15 January the sanctions will have been in operation for five and a half months and an assessment has to be made. I have tried to give the House the means by which that assessment will be made. Members will have their own sources of information. People may say that sanctions are producing decisive shortages which may lead to Saddam Hussein changing his mind. That would produce a new situation, but, as I have said, in our our view that is not so.
In August Her Majesty's Government committed their forces to the Gulf region for a number of reasons. The first was to defend Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. The second was to deter Saddam Hussein from pursuing his military adventure further. Many other countries, including some of our closest friends and allies, have committed their forces with the same intentions. Those two objectives of defence and deterrence have already been achieved without any military action.
The third reason for sending our troops to the region was to back the United Nations demand—not that of Britain or America—that Saddam Hussein should withdraw from Kuwait. By the middle of January, Britain will have more than 30,000 troops in the area and they will stand beside more than 500,000 others, most of them from the United States and Saudi Arabia itself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will speak further about that deployment in his winding-up speech. I am satisfied that this accumulation of allied force provides the strongest single hope for a peaceful outcome. Nevertheless—there is no point in having debates such as this if one does not speak plainly—this country faces a risk of war and in that situation every hon. Member is entitled to know on behalf of his or her constituents why that risk is justified. In the age of the sound-bite and the one-minute television interview, this task of communication becomes difficult. Secondary matters crowd in and confuse the issue and immediate questions are put and answered. That is why the House and our debates are so important.
It is not a question of who should rule Iraq—that is not a matter for us. It is not a matter of the price of oil or access to oil. If that were the issue, everyone would have settled with Saddam Hussein long ago. It is not a matter of an American—let alone a British—desire to impose some permanent presence in the Gulf. As the House

827
knows, we are there because friendly states out of their alarm and anxiety asked us to return. The real issue is a different one and we must keep it clear.
It has taken the world a long time to create even the beginnings of a system of collective security. In the 19th century, war was commonplace. The nation states of Europe blundered through treaties of alliance and treaties of reassurance into the great war of 1914. After that war, the international community experimented, but half-heartedly, with collective security. But the League of Nations was inadequate at its birth and it failed to act successfully even within its terms of reference.
Haile Selassie came to Geneva, to the League of Nations Assembly, to plead his country's cause. The League did not—could not—listen. We did not listen. The Hoare-Laval pact would have placated the aggressor, Mussolini, by giving him part of the country that he had attacked. Are there not echoes there for the House to catch? is it for a repetition of the Hoare-Laval pact that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is seeking and arguing? Abysinnia was snuffed out. The axis powers saw only weakness ——
Mr. Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, will he give way?
Mr. Hurd: May I just conclude the point?
[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I will, of course, give way.
Mr. Benn: The first speech that I heard in the House was in 1937 when Winston Churchill denounced the Tory Prime Minister for his support for the fascists. The appeasement of the pre-war years was Conservative support for Hitler and Mussolini. There was no appeasement—there was active support for fascism. It does not fall to the right hon. Gentleman, who did nothing about Panama, Grenada, the invasion of the Lebanon or the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey, to accuse those who believe that war would be a catastrophe beyond imagining, and that the United Nations should be an agent of peace, of appeasement, and he should withdraw that.
Mr. Hurd: I do not remember, but the right hon. Gentleman might remember—or his father and my father might remember—that when it became known that Sir Samuel Hoare, the holder of my office, had put together with the French Foreign Minister, Pierre Laval, an arrangement by which part of Abyssinia would be given to Mussolini, so that the awkwardness of his aggression should be forgotten, the Foreign Secretary was forced to resign and was swept from office.
Mr. Benn: I have made no such suggestion.
Mr. Hurd: I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman remembered. Some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested come close to that.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in no way sensitive about my personal position, but when the Foreign Secretary argues, by parallel with the Conservative Foreign Secretary, Sam Hoare, that I have argued that a part of Kuwait should be handed to Iraq, he is misleading the House and the country.
Mr. Speaker: With any luck, the right hon. Gentleman will be called in the debate and he will be able to make his points then.
Mr. Hurd: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he agrees with us that Saddam Hussein should withdraw completely and totally from the whole of Kuwait, I will withdraw any reference—
Mr. Benn: Withdraw it now.
Mr. Hurd: I would certainly withdraw any reference to the right hon. Gentleman. But there are certainly people who have argued that Iraq should be allowed to retain at least part of Kuwait—two islands, an oilfield, and so on. If the right hon. Gentleman is not among those, and if he is in favour of total Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, I withdraw my reference to him.
Mr. Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I spent three hours with Saddam Hussein. I reported back to the right hon. Gentleman and to the American ambassador. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well, because I told him, that I told President Saddam Hussein that Iraq must comply with the United Nations resolutions, and it is in the early-day motion which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled. The right hon. Gentleman is doing what Tories always do in a crisis—they smear those who challenge them.
Mr. Hurd: I withdraw my reference to the right hon. Gentleman——
Mr. Benn: Withdraw.
Mr. Hurd: I have already done so. But I hope that it will go out as the clear view of the House that President Saddam Hussein should withdraw not from part but from the whole of his aggression against Kuwait. If that is established as the universal view of the House, that is a major step forward.
Mr. Benn: But not to war.
Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that in a minute, though I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not blurring his position again. I hope that it is established that the withdrawal from Kuwait should be total and absolute.
For the 40 years of the cold war, the Security Council worked imperfectly and too often it was ineffective. Things have started to change and we have begun to make the United Nations work. All five permanent Security Council members are meeting frequently, talking openly and acting constructively together. We have the same aims. In fact, we have a better chance of collective security than at any other time this century. But there is a subscription to pay —if one may so put it—for collective security, in terms of collective action when aggression occurs. There can be little respect for those who want the benefits of collective security but are not willing to find that subscription.
Some senior hon. Members have fought in a war, but most of us have not. However, we all have enough imagination and sense of responsibility to know that war must be the last resort. No one should believe—here I agree with points made by Opposition Members—that forcing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait would be a quick or easy operation. No one should suppose that the aftermath of conflict would be painless or straightforward. We respect the belief held by pacifists that in no circumstances is war justified, even though that means that aggression and evil of all kinds may sometimes be allowed to succeed. The rest of us—probably most right hon. and

829
hon. Members—accept that there are circumstances in which peace-loving nations may, and indeed should, use force to prevent and to reverse aggression.
We do not argue that in any blithe or careless manner. We prepare the military option, we seek and we gain authority for the military option because in sober judgment we see the experience of that option—the possibility of that option, the existence of that option—as the last and most powerful peaceful pressure on the aggressor.
The latest Security Council resolution—resolution 678 —is not a bluff. The legal authority to use force has been there for some time and the political authority has now been given by the Security Council. That is the strongest possible expression of collective security.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of collective security and to stress the need to prepare to use force if Iraq does not withdraw from Kuwait. Will he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence make it equally clear that if war comes, it is likely to be protracted and bloody, and will not only engage British forces already in the Gulf but make it necessary to mobilise appropriate reserves, including air reserves? As it is likely to be largely an air war, the air element will decide the outcome of the conflict. The United Kingdom has very poor air reserves, but the United States has utilised 45 per cent. of its air transport to the Gulf from its reserves. Will my right hon. Friend make a similar commitment at this time?
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will deal with that point when he winds up the debate. One cannot predict with any exactness the length of a conflict of this kind. I have just said that no one pretends that it will be quick or easy.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State for Defence said so only last week.
Mr. Hurd: No, no one has ever pretended that.
Mr. Cohen: The Secretary of State for Defence said that
"the operation would be short, sharp and quick".—[Official Report, 4 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 167.]
Mr. Hurd: The existence of the military option is the strongest possible expression of collective security and the strongest possible incentive for Iraq to reverse its aggression. That military option is gaining formidable strength on the ground and in the air and Britain is adding notably to that strength.
The aim is a peaceful solution. The Iraqis see the array that is now building up against them. They know of the authority that is backing that array, which now comes from so many nations and from the United Nations. Now that it has become clear and is no longer blurred, they have a powerful incentive and reason to comply. Let us keep the message clear and not confuse it with secondary issues. The message is a double one—if the aggressor stays in Kuwait, he will be forced out; if he leaves Kuwait and complies fully with the Security Council resolutions, he will not be attacked.
830
There is a peace option. It is in Saddam Hussein's hands. We are working for peace and will go on working for peace, but the doctrine of peace at any price leads not to safety but to danger.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas rose——
Mr. Hurd: Our policy is clear, firm and reasonable. In commending it to the House, I hope that it will have the backing of all who believe in the possibilities of collective security and a safer world.
4.9 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is now 19 weeks, more than four months, since the Gulf crisis broke. In the Labour party, we have been guided by two principles during that period. The first is that the House of Commons must regularly have the opportunity to discuss the crisis and the role of the United Kingdom in it. That is why we asked for the recall of the House in September. That is why we have asked for and obtained a series of statements from the Government. That is why we have tabled a series of private notice questions and that is why we asked for today's debate. The debate is being held at the request of the Opposition. We thought that it was especially important that the House should have the opportunity to discuss the situation before we rose for the Christmas recess, bearing in mind the date of 15 January contained in United Nations resolution 678, which was carried by the Security Council the week before last.
Our second principle—of paramount and overriding importance to us—is that the role of the United Nations shall be central to all actions taken to resolve the crisis and that the decisions and policies of the United Nations must at all times be upheld and supported. That is all the policies and all the decisions. That includes the authorisation, in resolution 660, of negotiations between Kuwait and Iraq, following unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait by Iraq, and it includes the insistence, in resolution 660 right through to resolution 678, of complete and unconditional withdrawal by Iraq from Kuwait. It is important to bear it in mind that the international coalition responsible for those resolutions is supported by the League of Arab States.
The League of Arab States made a specific declaration, after the first United nations resolutions were passed, supporting those resolutions calling for the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait.
Four months after the outbreak of the crisis, it is important to recall how it began. Many right hon. and hon. Members will wish to discuss the issue of force— whether it is right to use it and, if so, at what point and with what justification. It is understandable and right that the House should consider so grave a possibility. Further, it is right to remember that force has already been used in this crisis. Force started this crisis, with the unprovoked military invasion by Iraq of Kuwait, an innocent and peaceful neighbour.
There has been killing in Kuwait, as newly returned hostages have confirmed and described. Kuwaiti refugees, whom I met when I visited the Gulf, described to me how babies had been torn from incubators. There has been rape. There has been looting on perhaps an unprecedented scale. When the House, in a sober mood, considers how

831
best to respond to the crisis, it is right that we should remember how it began and why the United Nations Security Council responded as it did.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The right hon. Gentleman talked about the way in which the conflict began. Does he recall that. the Kuwaiti Government lent billions of pounds to Iraq to assist it in its war against Iran and when the Iraqi Government visited Kuwait and asked it to waive those massive loans it would not agree to do so? Saddam Hussein returned to his country, mobilised his army and caused all this death and destruction because he was unwilling to repay a loan. In other words, he welshed on a debt.
Mr. Kaufman: On 7 September I referred to the fact that Iraq had——
Dr. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has used an unparliamentary expression about a minority nationality within the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) accused the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) of having welshed on a bet. Nevertheless interventions of that kind are best made in a speech if the hon. Gentleman is called.
Mr. Kaufman: I am not sure to what extent the intervention of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) was necessary since the information that he sought to provide, without the objectionable word he used, was well known to all hon. Members. There were, of course, other reasons for the invasion, including a dispute over oil prices and oil production, access to the Gulf and other matters. It was a complex set of circumstances.
The Security Council has now passed 12 resolutions dealing with the matter. Since the House met in September it has passed seven resolutions and, in addition to resolution 678 carried the week before last, they have included the authorisation of an air blockade to enforce sanctions.
Since the House last debated the issue, there have been two other important developments. First, there was the invitation by President Bush to Saddam Hussein for talks between the United States and Iraq. Despite the problems encountered in fixing suitable dates, we hope that the talks will take place soon. They could play an important part in resolving the crisis. Secondly, last week Iraq., in announcing the unconditional release of all foreign hostages, complied with Security Council resolution 664. That is an important success for the United Nations sanctions policy. Apart from our satisfaction that the inhuman and illegal detention of innocent persons is coming to an end, the Labour party is particularly gratified that, for the first time, Iraq has complied with a Security Council resolution. We now call upon Iraq to comply with the other 11 resolutions and withdraw from Kuwait—all of Kuwait.
There is one simple and obvious way for the crisis to be resolved peacefully and without further bloodshed and loss of innocent lives, and that is for Iraq to reverse its act of aggression and withdraw from the territory that it holds illegally and against every principle of international law.
832
Let Iraq withdraw now. If Saddam Hussein does not withdraw speedily, two options remain to secure his compliance with the United Nations resolutions—the use of force and the use of sanctions. I put them in that order not to imply a preference for force but simply because wish to put to the House in a considered way what the Labour party has said about each of the options.
There is no doubt that at any time since 2 August article 51 of the United Nations charter could have been invoked to trigger the use of force. Article 51 says:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
The applicability of article 51 to the crisis was specifically endorsed in Security Council resolution 661, which was passed on 6 August. That was the resolution which imposed economic sanctions. It included an affirmation on what it called
"the inherent right of individual or collective self defence, in response to the armed attack by Iraq against Kuwait, in accordance with article 51 of the Charter."
There can be no doubt about that. Since 2 August, it has been open to Kuwait to request friendly countries to liberate its territory by force under article 51.
Mr. Edward Heath: The matter is not quite as straightforward as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. If he rereads article 51 carefully, he will see that the individual right rests until the United Nations itself takes over. That means that no individual right to the use of force is left after the United Nations takes over. The use of force by the United Nations has to be put forward by the Security Council and not by individual states.
Mr. Kaufman: In a moment, I shall come to why I do not support the use of article 51. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) would have been correct if the United Nations Security Council had not passed resolution 661. Resolution 660, which was passed on 2 August, was the straightforward resolution on the day of the invasion which called for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait unconditionally. One would have assumed that, under the part of article 51 to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, the right of invoking article 51 was then subsumed by the decision of the United Nations in resolution 661 to take sanctions action. That would have been my assumption and that is why I regard it as significant and remarkable that, while the United Nations took that action in resolution 661, it also reaffirmed in that resolution
"the inherent right of individual or collective self defence, in response to the armed attack by Iraq against Kuwait, in accordance with article 51 of the charter."
The Security Council said that, despite the part of article 51 that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has quite properly quoted, article 51 remained as a resource to Kuwait should it wish it.
I want now to explain to the House why, even so, we in the Labour party have not believed in the invocation of article 51 in any case. When she was Prime Minister, the

833
right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) several times cited article 51 as a justification for the use of force, and the Foreign Secretary did so many times. However, throughout the crisis, we in the Labour party have repeatedly stated our concern about the use of force under article 51. The Foreign Secretary can confirm that, in my conversations with him, I have repeatedly warned against using article 51 as a justification for force.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition repeated the warning in his speech to the House on 6 September. On the following day, I said:
"It is not enough to be able to argue a technical case under article 51 … If the international consensus is broken as a result of action that key permanent members of the Security Council either cannot support or actively oppose, not only will there be no effective United Nations machinery available to police a settlement, but there will not be a settlement to police."
In my speech to the Labour party conference in October, I quoted a declaration by the Trades Union Congress. It said:
"It would be damaging to the UN and to the interests of working people caught up in the crisis if resort was made to unilateral military action. It is essential therefore, if the UN is to fully develop its role and enhance its authority that it should have the full backing of government and that they act consistently in upholding the Charter."
On 7 September, I said:
"We"—
that is, the Labour party—
"believe that any further operations found necessary … should … be clearly and unequivocally authorised by the United Nations."—[Official Report, 7 September 1990; Vol. 177, c. 892–93.]
That has been the Labour party's position throughout.
On a naval blockade, the Government at first said that article 51 was sufficient authority and justification. I, on behalf of the Labour party, called for a Security Council resolution, and one was in due course passed. On an air blockade, the Government at first said that article 51 was sufficient authority and justification. I, on behalf of the Labour party, called for a Security Council resolution, and one was in due course passed.
I know that the House will accept that I do not cite those examples in any way to score points. [Interruption.] It is foolish for Conservative Members to scoff when I am trying to put a serious argument on these matters, but I am afraid it is typical of the small minority of silly Conservative Members.
I cite those points to illustrate and emphasise that, at all stages of the crisis, the Labour party has insisted on clear and unequivocal United Nations authority for any action taken. Of course, on the gravest form of action—the use of force to compel Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait—we have been especially firm. In the House on 6 September, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, said:
"if military action were taken when sanctions had been in force for only a matter of weeks or months, or when there had been no further provocation, or when there had been no further effort to achieve agreement to a mandate to attack, either in the Security Council or in the military staff committee, that military action could shatter the consensus that has been built."—[Official Report, 6 September 1990; Vol. 177, c. 747.]
That is the argument that my right hon. Friend put to the House when we debated this matter. It was on that basis that, in October, the Labour party conference
834
overwhelmingly carried a statement that declared that the United Kingdom Government's decision to send British forces to the region was "necessary and justified". It may be noted that, at our conference, even a resolution that was rejected as being too limiting on the scope of action by the United Nations, and therefore defeated by 4,862,000 to 625,000 votes, nevertheless called on the British Government not to commit forces to international operations against Iraq
"unless they have explicit authorisation under a resolution passed by the Security Council."
I have since restated our clear position on a number of occasions. I said that
"there should be clear United Nations authority if force was to be invoked and that that authority must be obvious not simply to legalists invoking article 51 of the United Nations charter, but to the judgment of the world community".—[Official Report, 24 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 337.]
On 8 November, during the debate on the Queen's Speech,
I stated:
"We"—
that is, the Labour party—
"are extremely keen that United Nations authority should be available for any action that is taken, if action by force should be taken."—[Official Report, 8 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 160.]
Even at that stage the Government still publicly regarded article 51 as sufficient, but, the next day, following the visit to London by Mr. James Baker, the United States Secretary of State, the United Kingdom Government finally accepted that a Security Council resolution was necessary to authorise the use of force. That resolution was carried on 29 November, and, in accordance with the stand that my party has taken throughout the crisis, I told the House that that resolution fulfilled the stipulations that we had repeatedly laid down since 2 August.
Mr. Donald Thompson: I ask the right hon. Member a question that is asked in other places: "Is that the verdict of you all?"
Mr. Kaufman: The Labour party has a firm policy, carried overwhelmingly by our party conference, and everybody who cites conference decisions must accept that policy.
A resolution authorising the use of force—Security Council resolution 678—has been carried. The question we have to consider is whether that resolution, and therefore that use of force, should be invoked. War is a dreadful option. No one should imagine for a moment that a war to liberate Kuwait could be painless—the clean, surgical strike calmly referred to by those whose lives would not be at risk in such a conflict. When I went to the Gulf, I visited our service men there. I met and conversed with many from my area, including the son of a constituent. If there is a war, and if there are casualties, those casualties will not, for me, be abstract. I shall see before me the eager faces of the young men whom I met.
It is possible that a war could be speedy and relatively free of casualties, but no one should launch a war on that assumption. Any launching of war should always be on the worst case assumption. A few weeks ago, I had a discussion on this very matter with Yitzhak Rabin, the former Prime Minister of Israel, who was chief of staff at the time of the six-day war. He pointed out that, although that conflict is known as the six-day war, when it was launched, the Israelis had no idea how long it would last,

835
how many people would be killed or what the outcome might be. As Mr. Rabin said to me, "It is easy to go into a war. It is less easy to know how you will come out of it."
The overwhelming preference of the Labour party, which I am sure is the overwhelming preference of the House and of the country, is for a resolution of this crisis by the use of sanctions to force the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. I put this view in the House nearly two months ago, when I asked the Foreign Secretary to
"confirm that it is our objective that sanctions should achieve the liberation of Kuwait, with force an option to be invoked by the international community only if there is clear evidence over a sufficient period that sanctions cannot achieve that United Nations objective"—
Sir David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I have a careful argument that I should like to pursue.
The Foreign Secretary told me in reply that I had
"stated exactly the position that we all take."—[Official Report, 24 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 337–38.]
Resolution 678, passed on 29 November, authorised the use of force, or necessary means, to uphold and implement the Security Council resolution unless
"Iraq on or before January 15 1991 fully implements"
the United Nations resolution. The insertion of a date in that resolution took place at the insistence of the Soviet Union as a condition of that country's support of the resolution. The date was chosen by the Soviet Union. The United States, which sponsored the resolution, did not want a date inserted into it. However, international consensus was required and both a date and any date were part of the process of achieving that consensus. Last week, on 4 December, the spokesman of President Gorbachev, Mr. Vitaly Ignatenko, said:
"The time to implement this resolution is available. The goodwill period is quite sufficient. We emphasise that the resolutions are not ultimatums. It's a last chance to look at what they have done and find a way out".
Stipulation of the date does not necessarily trigger the use of force on or immediately after that date. We in the Labour party repeat our position that the option of force should be invoked only after the maximum time has been given for sanctions to work——
Sir Jim Spicer rose——
Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
We should not be hemmed in by the date of 15 January. We should not be boxed in by the compulsion of the desert timetable and the effects of the weather on the ability to wage war. If a longer haul is judged likely to achieve the effect of sanctions, we should not rely on other considerations to reject the longer haul.
Important considerations must be borne in mind. How long can the international consensus on sanctions hold together? Clearly the impact of sanctions must not be allowed to fray, or their credibility will not survive and they will cease to be an effective option. How long will Saddam Hussein believe that the United Nations is determined to oust him from Kuwait if the option of force is not invoked and if sanctions remain the only instrument for ousting him? Those are the vital questions which must be answered, and whether to use force and, if so, when will depend on getting those answers right.
836
I repeat that it is the overwhelming wish of the Labour party to use sanctions rather than force to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, but he must be ousted from Kuwait unconditionally, as the United Nations resolution states, and from all Kuwait. In this House and at our conference, the Labour party has made it clear that if, in the end, the only way to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait is by force, force will have to be used.
Mr. David Lambie: My right hon. Friend will have heard the Foreign Secretary's reply to a question asked earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about whether the Government believe that they now have the power to initiate a war without reference back to either the United Nations or the British House of Commons. Will my right hon. Friend explain the position of the official Opposition on this point?
Mr. Kaufman: We take a very clear view, which I shall continue to amplify before I sit down, which is that, in the end, the will of the United Nations must prevail. That is the key criterion: the will of the United Nations must prevail, preferably without the use of force, but in resolution 678 the United Nations has now authorised the use of force. We hope that it will not be used, but it is there with the United Nations' authority to be used.
There are two reasons why we in the Labour party take the view that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to remain in Kuwait and why we say that unequivocally. First, if Iraq were allowed to retain Kuwait despite the clearly and repeatedly expressed determination of the United Nations that he should get out, he would, quite simply, have won. He would know that he had defied the international community with impunity.
An Iraq that had swallowed Kuwait and got away with it would be an Iraq that bestrode the middle east. It would be an Iraq with the power already to wage chemical and biological warfare and with nothing to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons. A triumphant Iraq which, having got away with one act of aggression and taken control of 20 per cent. of the world's oil, might at some stage feel free to move further into Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. It might feel free to absorb Jordan and it might confront Israel.
I hate the idea of a war to free Kuwait. I hate even more the possibility of a wider middle east conflagration that could involve the use of nuclear weapons, the consequences and implications of which would be incalculable.
The second reason why Iraq cannot be allowed to remain in Kuwait is that if it did so, that would shatter the United Nations. I have been asked repeatedly throughout the crisis whether we in the Labour party support the Conservative Government on this issue. I have repeatedly replied that that is not the right question. The right question is, "Do we in the Labour party support the United Nations?" The answer, in accordance with our party constitution, is that we do, absolutely and unequivocally. The right question is, "Do the British Conservative Government support the United Nations?" Repeatedly we in the Labour party have pressed the Government to support the United Nations and act only through it.
I said in the House on 7 September that the Labour party would not give the Government a blank cheque. We

837
have not given them a blank cheque. We have pressed them both publicly and privately to act only in accordance with clear and unequivocal United Nations' authority. That is the test by which we have judged the Government's actions, and by which we shall continue to judge their actions.
It is utterly essential that the will of the United Nations should prevail on the matter of Iraq and Kuwait.
Mr. Lambie: What about the House of Commons?
Mr. Kaufman: I respect my hon. Friend's view. I know that he has sincere pacifist principles. Anyone in the Labour party must always respect those principles. But we in the Labour party have a commitment to the United Nations, and that commitment must prevail.
Mr. Benn: Is it my right hon. Friend's view that the Government should commit British forces to action without the explicit consent of the House of Commons? The Democrats and many others in the United States Congress are demanding that their consent should be obtained.
Mr. Kaufman: The constitutional position in the United States is, of course, different from the position here. The Congress is part of the Government and it believes that its consent is required. There is a dispute between the executive and the legislature on that point. I have said many times, and I said at the beginning of my speech today, that the Labour party has continually brought the matter before the House. As the 15 January deadline is only a day after the return of the House from the Christmas recess, we specifically asked that the House should debate the matter before the Christmas recess. Regardless of any constitutional niceties, we believed that the House should have the right to debate this issue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) used the word "decided". If it is a matter of deciding, and if deciding deals with his misgivings, he can be sure that there is a majority on the Conservative Benches—regardless of the view on the Opposition Benches—for such a decision. My right hon. Friend said at the Labour party conference that if we did not vote in the way in which he wished us to vote we would give a mandate for war. The Labour party did not vote in the way in which he wished us to vote.
Mr. Benn: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that I did not speak at the Labour party conference?
Mr. Kaufman: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend could have reversed a vote of 600,000 to 4,800,000, although I know that his eloquence is considerable.
We are clear that the United Nations is being tested by this crisis. Twelve Security Council resolutions have been carried—the strongest series of resolutions ever carried by the Security Council. The resolutions authorised sanc-tions, blockade and force. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will have been seen to be nothing but an empty and futile talking shop. There will be no point in the Security Council passing any more resolutions on anything. There will be no point in its having any more meetings on anything. There will be no point in the Security Council even existing. Chaos will rule the world.
838
Yet if the Security Council prevails and its authority is demonstrated as never before, instead of world chaos there will be the basis and precedent for world order. The United Nations will begin to acquire authority to deal with other vexed issues such as the western Sahara, Kashmir and Palestine. If the Security Council fails on Kuwait, there will be no hope of compelling an intractable Israeli Government to respond to the aspirations of the Palestinian people for self-determination. However, if the Security Council succeeds on Kuwait a precedent will have been set for the western Sahara, Kashmir and the Palestinians.
We in the Labour party have long joined with the four permanent members of the Security Council, the Israeli Labour party, the League of Arab States and the Palestine Liberation Organisation in calling for an international conference to deal with all the issues in the middle east. It could achieve peace treaties between Israel and Syria and Jordan and Lebanon, the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, Palestinian self-determination with built-in guarantees for the security of Israel and all other participating countries, and provision to find a decent solution to the ordeal of the Palestinian refugees. It could rid the middle east of nuclear and chemical weapons and prevent any other nations from acquiring a nuclear or chemical capability. It could work for an international code of practice to limit and control arms sales in the region. Not only to solve the Kuwait issue but for the even more crucial reasons that I have listed, I am adamant that the United Nations must succeed in the objectives that it has set itself on Kuwait.
There is no need for a vote tonight. If there is a vote, I shall vote in the No Lobby. For 11 years I have worked in the House against this Conservative Government and I shall not rest until they are defeated in a general election. I shall not vote in the No Lobby because I have any appetite for voting in the same Lobby as the Government. But I shall vote in that Lobby without hesitation because I want to send a signal to Saddam Hussein that the Labour party is unequivocal in its support of the United Nations, that we do not pick and choose between the articles of the charter or between Security Council resolutions, that we accept the entire charter, that we uphold all the resolutions and that we shall not yield or rest in our determination that order shall rule in the world and that that order shall be based on the authority of the United Nations Organisation.
4.47 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for both the tone and content of his speech, which were welcome. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence replies to the debate he will be able to deliver his speech in the same way.
I wish to finish the discussion that I had across the Floor of the House with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I accept entirely that he wants United Nations action. But I still disagree with his interpretation of article 51. If he looks again at resolution 661, he will see that it does not say that the right exists in place of or as an alternative to article 51. It says that the right is in accordance with article 51. It reiterates the present position in resolution 660. I say that only

839
because on a future occasion it may be of even greater importance that action should not be taken by an individual power.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's words about the hostages who are now returning to England in large numbers. I shall make just one point about that, drawn from the experience that we have had since a considerable number of hostages returned with me a few weeks ago. There is a major problem of adjustment to the conditions of ordinary life. That is, perhaps, true of those who were with me because most were ill, some dying, and others were very old and infirm; but I suspect that it is even more true of those who have been in hiding in Kuwait, as well as those who have been in Iraq, experiencing reasonable conditions but denied their freedom.
I hope that the Government will do everything possible to arrange for a service to be provided for those people. It would probably be best if the means for them to contact counsellors were set out in a leaflet which could be given to them on the planes, or when they arrive at Heathrow or Gatwick. It will then be up to them to seek advice, but I know that many counsellors up and down the country would be only too willing to help them through what is bound to be a difficult four, six or eight-week period after their arrival.
Before I deal with the basic issues, let me say a word about Jordan. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke about the countries close to Iraq, he did not mention Jordan: no doubt that was not a deliberate omission from the long list that he gave. Jordan has suffered more than any other country—apart from Kuwait —as a result of the Iraqi move, and it is still suffering. According to the latest figure that I have been given, it has dealt with 808,000 refugees who have passed through it, excluding Jordanians themselves.
The United Nations estimates the cost to Jordan as some $60 million, but Jordan has been given only $4 million to help to cover that cost. Survival is therefore a major problem for Jordan. It has been calculated—again, by the International Monetary Fund—that, if the crisis continues for the rest of the year, Jordan will lose over 55 per cent. of its gross domestic product this year.
We must ask how long Jordan can last out in such circumstances, and what we can do to enable it to survive economically. King Hussein has been a friend of ours for many years, and has supported us often in the middle east —as, indeed, we have supported him—but, in the present circumstances, it is difficult to see how, without immediate action, Jordan can survive. I am afraid that there are those, particularly in the United States, who say, "Do what we tell you, and then we shall see whether we can help." In my view, that is not diplomacy: it is not the way in which to treat a friend who is in great difficulty. The right way is to try to understand his position—in this instance, a unique position in relation to Iraq—and then say, "In what way can we help? We will do so as speedily as possible." I hope that the Government will be able to deal with this matter speedily, because it is urgent
Let me now turn to the main issues in what is a very sober debate. Having recently travelled in Europe, the middle east and the far east, and across the United States, I have returned to hear noises that make this—in part of the House—the most bellicose unit in the world. I shall not allow that to dismay me; I think that we must deal with the situation as we find it, here and in the middle east.
840
Resolution 660 was the first to be passed by the United Nations, and governs all its other resolutions, which are there to amplify it. It contains three short paragraphs. The first
"condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait".
The second
"demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990";
The third
"calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States".
The important point is that paragraphs 2 and 3 both use the word "immediately"; they are therefore together. It is remarkable that, in all the speeches made by President Bush, Mr. Baker and the Front-Bench spokesmen in the House, paragraph 3 has never been mentioned, although it is just as important as paragraph 2.
If paragraph 3 is to be carried through in the same way as paragraph 2, there must be discussions with Baghdad as well as with the Kuwaiti Government in exile—the emir and his relations—about how they are to resolve their differences. I should have thought that in the first place this was a matter for the Secretary-General of the United Nations, but, from all the inquiries that I have made, I gather that he seems to have been put into a straitjacket, so other means must be found. There is an urgent need for members of our Government to play a part in arrangements for paragraph 3 to be dealt with at the same time as paragraph 2.
The former Prime Minister said that there is nothing to discuss, but there is an immense amount to discuss—for instance, the question of unconditional withdrawal. I said to President Saddam Hussein—having dealt first with the hostages—that there should be an immediate withdrawal, to which he replied, "If I withdraw, what undertaking will you give me that the Americans or the British will not move into Kuwait and then be in a better position to wage war against me than they are at present?" I said, "I can give you no undertaking; I have no status." My answer is, however, that the Arab League itself must form a buffer round Kuwait, and, if necessary, to the north of Kuwait,to guarantee that the forces now in Saudi Arabia do not attempt to go into Kuwait and put themselves into a better tactical and strategic position.
My view was reinforced by what the Secretary of State for Defence said on 7 September:
"What I am saying in respect of His Royal Highness Prince Sultan, the Defence Minister of Saudi Arabia, is the position. We are not there to attack Kuwait or Iraq. We are there to defend Saudi Arabia and to ensure that the United Nations embargo is effectively implemented."—[Official Report, 7 September 1990; Vol. 177, c. 842.]
That is why we are there, and that must be borne in mind when we are discussing the whole question of what military action will be taken. As far as I know, that is still the position: we are there to defend Saudi Arabia, and to ensure that the United Nations shipping and air embargo and the sanctions are implemented.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If the Arab League forms some kind of unit in the Kuwait area following the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give the Israelis that it will not then turn on Israel and try to destroy it utterly?
Mr. Heath: That must be part of the general arrangement, described by both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Gorton, for dealing with middle eastern questions as a whole. I was pleased to note that, during my discussions in Baghdad, President Saddam Hussein made no direct link between dealing with the Kuwait problem and dealing with Israel and the middle eastern problem. He said, "Of course I want the middle eastern problem as a whole dealt with, and also the Israeli and Palestinian problem"; but he did not say that any arrangement concerning Kuwait must be linked with the middle east.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that—as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said—the matter must be pursued. It is impossible to go anywhere in the world today without being told that double standards operate. For instance, nothing has been done about resolution 232, concerning Israel, for the past 30 years. However, we are trying to take action in regard to Kuwait in this instance. No one can deny that that is the position.
The official explanation is that the cold war was going on. I do not believe that that is the real reason—or, at any rate, I do not consider it a justifiable excuse. But it would be ironic if, the cold war having ceased, we then embarked on what could be the most damaging war in history, with the use of chemical and biological weapons and the blowing up of oil wells, which would create the biggest fire in history and damage the whole economy of the western world.
The public should be told the consequences of going to war. That might increase our determination to use means of regaining Kuwait by peaceful methods. The public should be told, remembering that the public in the United States are being told infinitely more than is being said in Britain. They have special correspondents and military spokesmen, and the discussion in the congressional committees is making clear exactly what would be involved in a war. The possible casualty figures have been given openly and full statements have been made about what might happen to oil and the economies of the world. So I hope that the public in Britain will be made aware of what the costs of such a war would be.
From the point of view of securing a settlement, the differences between Kuwait and Iraq must be resolved. That makes it difficult to say that there cannot possibly be any alteration affecting land from the point of view of Iraq and Kuwait because of the question of boundaries. President Saddam asked me, "To which boundary are you insisting I return?" I replied, "I cannot say. If you ask for my personal view, it is the boundary that was settled in 1961–62."
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): It is in the resolution.
Mr. Heath: I know, so the question leads us to consider what the boundary was before all this happened. It is alleged that during the eight years of war with Iran the Kuwaitis advanced 60 to 80 km beyond the boundary settled by the British when we moved out in 1961. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but it is, at any rate, a matter for argument and discussion, and somebody should be doing that. Nobody is at present, and it is not enough merely to say that there can be no change of land.
If the Kuwaitis agreed that the two islands should go to Iraq, would we say that we could not allow that to happen?
842
Of course we would not. So every time we insist that there can be no possible change in land, we are going against item 3—that is, if it were agreed between Kuwait and Iraq.
Similarly, the Arab League could get to work on that. Many of us know that the Arab League is already working on it, although there is criticism in that respect. The question is asked, "Why are the Arabs interfering with what we are doing?" The real answer is that the only lasting settlement of the dispute must come from the Arabs themselves. If we, the Americans and British in particular, try to impose a settlement, it will always be questioned, as the boundaries of the past have been questioned. We should welcome the fact that the Arabs are themselves taking an ever greater interest, even though they have been opposed to Iraq because of its invasion of Kuwait.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that part of the difficulty is the confusion which equates dialogue with appeasement, when dialogue and appeasement are very different matters?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am afraid that "appeasement" is used as a weapon against those who want to have what the hon. Gentleman calls dialogue, simply to whip up public feeling. Most of those who use it were not even alive in the 1930s, when it happened, and have never studied what the problems of appeasement were. Those of us who opposed it are aware of it very well——
Mr. Denis Healey: Including me.
Mr. Heath: I give full credit to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) because we were both in the same place at the same time opposing it.
We reach the point at which the issues must be thrashed out, and I hope that when Mr. Baker goes to Baghdad and the silly arguments about dates are all settled, he will not simply say, "Saddam, get out". If he does, President Saddam will reply, "Will you kindly leave Baghdad?" There must be discussion—if one does not like to use the word "negotiation"—and he can discuss what are the outstanding problems with Kuwait.
Mr. Hurd rose——
Mr. Tony Marlow rose——
Mr. Heath: I am doing my best to be brief.
Mr. Hurd: I am listening to my right hon. Friend with great care. Regarding his point about the United Nations, Secretary-General Mr. Perez de Cuellar went to Amman, met Tariq Aziz and made an attempt, in the exercise of his duty, which was rebuffed. He has since explained to me and others that he would have great difficulty going again, in pursuit of Security Council resolutions, if he were to receive a similar rebuff.
As for the Arabs, my right hon. Friend will have noticed what the Kuwaitis and Saudis have said in the past few days in response to the sort of reports to which my right hon. Friend is referring and with which I dealt. They are not interested—how could they be—in settling for less than the Security Council requirements. They would regard doing so as entirely wrong.
I do not want to lengthen my intervention unnecessarily, but my right hon. Friend said near the beginning of his remarks that President Hussein had told him that he feared that, whatever he did, he would be

843
attacked, even if he pulled back. I hope my right hon. Friend will have noticed what the United States Administration, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have said. The message is a double one: if he does not fully comply, he will be forced out, and if he does fully comply, he will not be attacked.
Mr. Heath: I realise that, but I also realise that if I were in Baghdad in his position I would want some assurances. Having seen what has been happening recently, with half a million troops there and with the British pouring in more, I would want a solid assurance that the Americans, having got all those men and all that equipment there and with President Bush wanting to know what to do with them, would not move into Kuwait. Questions remain to be answered. For example, suppose the emir of Kuwait said, "I want all the Americans and British." What undertaking would President Bush and the Prime Minister be prepared to give? Those are all matters that could be discussed, but the essential ingredient of discussion is lacking.
It is said that the UN Secretary-General has great difficulty going to Baghdad. I do not understand his difficulty. If one is working for peace, one keeps on working for peace, and the United Nations was set up to secure peace. So I do not see why the Secretary-General should have any difficulty in that respect. I see the Foreign Secretary sighing as I say that. I remember his sighing many years ago. He sighed in Paris over our entry into Europe, and he was wrong about that.
Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend has a great deal of wisdom and knowledge about the region. Some with less wisdom and knowledge seem rather more gung-ho about the military option. What, in his opinion, would be the reaction of the Israeli defence forces if a war were to start, and what implications does he think that would have for the long-term stability of the region and for British interests there?
Mr. Heath: I can give only a personal opinion. If war occurred, the Israelis would be in overnight. One question about a war is this: if the British, Americans and Israelis use atomic weapons when they find how difficult it is, we shall have chemical and biological weapons thrown from Iraq, and it will go on piling up— [Interruption.] That is openly discussed in military circles, and it should be discussed here. We should be told just what are the assurances.
On the question of discussions, I have a comment to make that I have made in public but not in the House. I make it because it is of enormous importance in view of attitudes that are struck in some parts of the alliance, to use that phrase, or at United Nations gatherings. I have been recalling what happened over the Cuban missile crisis, the second Cuban crisis. Having in recent weeks had an opportunity of going over the whole scene again with Robert McNamara, who was the American Defence Secretary under President Kennedy, I have concluded that the comparisons are very striking, as are the differences.
Khrushchev was determined to get nuclear weapons into Cuba. That became known. Kennedy was determined to prevent that from happening. Throughout the crisis Kennedy was in contact with Moscow. We still have full diplomatic relations, as have all other countries, with
844
Baghdad. I want to know what is happening between ambassadors and what exchanges are taking place between them.
Kennedy was constantly in contact with Khrushchev, and warning him. Finally, he said, "I am going to surround Cuba with my warships and it will be cut off. If your ships bringing in nuclear weapons try to break through, we shall fire across their bows and if they persist we shall sink them." Khrushchev said, "Why am I being prevented from sending nuclear weapons to Cuba? You say it is because they are a danger to you, but your nuclear weapons in Turkey are a danger to me and they are just as close, so why are you taking this attitude?" To that Kennedy replied, "Very well, I am not going to do a deal". He was quite clear about that. He said, "You cannot bring nuclear weapons into Cuba, but you can keep ordinary forces there." They are still there and have been since that day. The only person who did not know about them was President Carter because nobody ever told him. That was why he got his wires crossed with Brezhnev, who was very surprised, which upset the period up to 1980.
Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, without making it part of the deal, President Kennedy took American nuclear weapons out of Turkey.
Mr. Heath: I was just coming to that. President Kennedy said, "I am not going to do a deal, but I will tell you confidentially that the nuclear weapons we have in Turkey are out of date, so I am removing them." The American Secretary of Defence moved them from Turkey to Italy, summoned every television group and cameraman he could find and had the nuclear weapons openly destroyed. He said, "There you are—we brought them away only to destroy them." The result was that when the ships were coming up to Cuba there was a terrible moment of anxiety while everyone was sitting round the table in the White House with nothing more to say or do, just waiting. Then the ships turned about and went back and the nuclear weapons were never delivered.
I do not know how the Foreign Secretary would describe that. Is that appeasement? Is it a deal? Is it unjustified discussion and negotiations, or what? The plain fact is that it stopped a third world war. Surely we can use our imagination in the same way as Kennedy did. I do not want the Foreign Secretary to negotiate; I just want him to indicate. I want President Bush to say, "I shall do such and such." That is how we shall solve the crisis. I wish the Secretary of State for Defence would not look quite so puzzled—I can go over again all the details for the whole operation with him. The essential thing is not to get into a position of rigidity, but to realise that finding a peaceful solution, although not easy, is possible and the price of not finding one is immensely high and could be unsustainable.
Mr. George Walden: I do not think that many people in the House, if any, are against the concept of talking, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be no prospect of discussions with Iraq if the allies had not shown themselves willing to use military force in the last resort? I suspect that the hostages would not have been released if the allies had not shown themselves willing to resort to military force. It is a sad paradox, but I believe that we have done the right thing.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he should recall the quotation I gave from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence who said that we were there to defend Saudi Arabia, which is quite right.
Mr. Tom King: On 6 September.
Mr. Heath: Yes. President Saddam Hussein saw that, and for that reason he would not attack Saudi Arabia. There may be differences of opinion as to whether he would have done so in any case—that is a different discussion. Of course, I agree entirely that having the force there prevented him from attacking Saudi Arabia. As for the hostages, Saddam Hussein has realised—some of us tried to press him as hard as we could about it—that keeping them served no purpose.
I said to Saddam Hussein, "I must tell you frankly that the British Prime Minister"—the then Prime Minister—"will not be deterred from bombing your strategic points because you have got British there—not in the least. President Bush will not be deterred either." Therefore, all that Saddam Hussein is doing is denying the United Nations one of its points and it serves no useful purpose to Iraq or anyone else. I am glad that that message has gone home, he has accepted it and all the hostages are coming back here.
I was glad for the way in which the Foreign Secretary welcomed that move and I hope that we can now concentrate on paragraph 3, which has been so ignored by President Bush and those who are taking the lead. We must work hard to find a peaceful solution. I do not believe that it is impossible.
5.16 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: I am very glad to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I am sure that the House and the country will have listened with great care to what he said. When he went on his visit to Baghdad he was strongly criticised in some quarters, but I think that it was a most courageous action on his part; he helped to break the deadlock surrounding the hostages and showed how we might approach other matters. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the desirability of pursuing diplomacy while other United Nations actions continue, with which I also agree. However, I must emphasise that there are some matters on which I disagree with him profoundly.
Since the crisis broke, there have been two most serious perils or precipices from which the world might fall. The first was the precipice of allowing the aggression to succeed or be tolerated, and for all the protests of the United Nations to rank with those protests made against Hitler's invasions in the 1930s. We in the Labour party took the strong view that we must not permit that; we have a strong tradition of supporting the United Nations. The leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) have strongly sustained that tradition throughout, which has been essential to try to prevent a dangerous situation from becoming more dangerous.
It would be absurd for anyone to suppose that the second peril did not exist. It involved what might happen if we were plunged into war. Some of my hon. Friends, and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup a
846
moment ago, have emphasised those dangers. They were right to do so because in such a crisis it is right to spell out the appalling and horrific possibilities ahead of us.
In a sense, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is correct in saying that in some respects the alternative and the dangers involved have been more fully spelt out in the United States than in this country. It is right that we should take note of them. Perhaps the most forthright and all-encompassing statement on the subject was made by Mr. Brzezinski who, according to previous estimates on such matters, is certainly not a wet. He said:
"A war is likely to split the international consensus that currently exists, the United States is likely to become estranged from many of its European allies, and it is almost certain to become the object of widespread Arab hostility. Indeed, once started, the war may prove not all that easy to terminate, given the inflammable character of Middle Eastern politics. It could be costly in blood and financially devastating.
This prospect is all the more tragic because the United States would thereby be deprived of the fruits of its hard-earned victory in the Cold War."
Mr. Brzezinski continued that the region would be "profoundly disturbed" by war. He said:
"I fear that if we overplay our hand, it is we who will lose the flexibility."
He added that
"to speak of Saddam Hussein as a Hitler is to trivialise Hitler and to elevate Saddam."
The House, the country and the world should take note of that warning. The evidence so far is that the countries in the Security Council have taken the warning seriously, and I hope that they will continue to do so. A few wild voices were raised at the beginning of the crisis urging a sudden strike against Iraq to settle the issue, but all those voices have been stilled and the action was not taken. The Government can claim some credit for that. The full weight of the opinion of this House was thrown against any such development. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton stressed again today, we have thrown the weight of our party, our country and the House against that alternative.
So far, then, we have fallen over neither precipice. Now we must consider carefully how to proceed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to previous cases of the United Nations' failure to carry out its resolutions. He suggested that such failures in the middle east or in Cyprus mean that we have no authority or effective power to invoke the United Nations to settle this question ——
Mr. Benn indicated dissent.
Mr. Foot: That, at any rate, was how I construed his intervention. I am glad if he does not take that view, which would strengthen the arguments against the authority of the United Nations.
The Labour party has no need to be apologetic about these matters. On several occasions, Conservative Governments have refused to support the United Nations charter; indeed, they have acted in flagrant defiance of the charter, as they did in 1956. I do not say that our record is spotless, but it is a good deal better than that of Conservative Governments. We have done our best to try to sustain the charter of the United Nations.
Mr. Benn: Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether he believes that UN resolution 678 would authorise the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, under the phrase "all other

847
means"? The Commander-in-Chief of the American forces has said that nuclear weapons might be used in some circumstances. Would my right hon. Friend support that?
Mr. Foot: Certainly not. The resolution does not mean that—it refers to all appropriate means. I shall come later to how the danger of nuclear weapons being used in the middle east might be averted. That will involve upholding the authority of the United Nations, not casting it away.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and others have suggested that the United Nations lacks the moral authority to apply its doctrines because of our failure to apply the resolutions to the middle east. That is a gospel of despair. The argument should be put the other way around. If we can succeed in making the authority of the United Nations effective in this crisis, the chances of its being effective later in other areas are enormously improved.
It is sometimes said that only in recent weeks has there been unity between the Soviet Union, the other great powers and ourselves on these matters, but when resolution 242, on the occupied territories, was passed in 1967—I had some interest in the matter because my brother moved the resolution—the United States., the Soviet Union and the Israeli Government of the time backed it, and many Arab Governments have gradually come around to supporting it too. If we can achieve a successful and peaceful outcome to the Kuwait dispute, the chances of reapplying that resolution soon afterwards will be greatly enhanced, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has said several times.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield mentioned Cyprus, as he has every right to do. Many people there have complained strongly, asking what right we have to take action in Kuwait if we do not take note of the resolutions passed for their defence, but the same Cyprus Government who have asked that question support the stance of the Labour party on the Gulf because they have vision and sense enough to know that if we can obtain a settlement of the Kuwait dispute on the proper basis of decisions taken under the United Nations charter the chances of returning to deal with the Cyprus dispute will be greatly enhanced.
A little while ago, before this crisis arose, many people thought that the world might have a better chance in the 1990s. That chance still prevails, but the essential requirement for its success is that United Nations authority be established and sustained. I agree entirely with all who say that such cases must be carefully considered, but in some circumstances this means carrying out only one part of the charter—not only by applying sanctions, but by giving the United Nations military support under the charter.
I am almost the only hon. Member who was here when the charter was voted upon in the Parliament of 1945. I went to San Francisco as a journalist and saw what happened, and I was proud that the Labour party that I supported, and its leader Clem Attlee, played a foremost part in shaping that charter and learning from the experience of the 1930s.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has been wrongly accused of being guilty of some Hoare-Laval plan. That was plainly false, but there was such a thing as that plan. It was a breach of the elementary system of collective security that we then had. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) fought a
848
Conservative candidate in Oxford at the time, who I gather still exists in the shape of Lord Hailsham, who has an ambivalent view on these matters. Faced with the breach of international law involved in the raid on Libya, Lord Hailsham was the sole person in the universe to say that the action was in accordance with international law. I think that he was recalling his old appeasement days when he said that.
The whole thrust of the post-war period has, in any case, been to build a more collective and effective United Nations which would seek always to use sanctions. We must still use them and we have every possibility of succeeding thereby. The chances of their proving effective in this case are more hopeful than ever before. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East has said in past debates, we should persist in applying sanctions, which are much more effective than resorting to war. The influence of this House and of speeches such as that by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup can be used in that direction whenever there are dangers of people thinking in other terms.
The prize is very great. There have been differing accounts of how people have fared in conversations with Saddam Hussein. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup gave his account and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield will give his. As a long-standing socialist, I was proud to see that it looks as though the interview that had the best effect on President Hussein was the one with Willy Brandt. The account of that interview was given in The Observer on Sunday. It states:
"Brandt told him: 'Your survival, Mr. President, and the survival of your country depend on genuine concessions not linked to a deal with the West or anyone else.'
He added: 'All you can still hope for is a gradual change in Western public opinion, but you will achieve that only by releasing all hostages and withdrawing unconditionally from Kuwait. Time is not on your side in spite of President Bush's internal problems'."
Then the report describes the Iraqi president's reaction to the way in which Willy Brandt had stated the case. I am sure that Willy Brandt would not claim that it was only his conversation which had an effect but that it was also the background of events. At the same time as the apparatus, the panoply and the power of the United Nations are mobilised, it is important to mobilise intelligent methods of diplomacy. That underlines what was said by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Obviously, it was intelligent of Willy Brandt to go to Baghdad and speak in those terms.
In the 1990s, the United Nations can come into its own more than ever before. We owe a vote of thanks to Willy Brandt, who has played a bigger part than anyone else in securing the unification of Germany and peaceful developments. At the same time as we propose the strengthening of the United Nations charter, we should invite Germany to take its proper place as a member of the Security Council. It could play an important part.
Mr. Walden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foot: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I am coming to the end of my speech.
As my hon. Friends have said, the possibilities are enormous. I know how passionately and strongly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield feels on this, and he has stated his case with his usual skill and determination. However, a vote against the Government's

849
policies would be a vote not against the Government but against the United Nations policies on these matters, and such a vote could damage the cause of making the United Nations charter work peacefully and successfully in solving this dispute.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I remind the House that nearly 40 right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I ask for brief speeches.
5.32 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) robustly defended the importance of standing up for collective security. He rightly praised Mr. Brandt's initiative and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in visiting Baghdad. I do not wish to criticise either of those statesmen for doing so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup called for dialogue, but my impression is that dialogue is going on all the time. The Iraqi Foreign Minister goes to the Gulf, Oman and Yemen and there are visits to Algiers. What could be more in the way of dialogue than President Bush's invitation to Tariq Aziz and of Mr. Baker's proposed visit to Baghdad? We are not avoiding dialogue. So far we have avoided negotiations, but there are many opportunities for people to talk, and they are doing so.
In this last debate on the matter before the recess, it is important to weigh up the realities. The Arabian peninsula has the biggest deployment of military force ever seen in thousands of years. Some 500,000 Iraqis are dug in in and around Kuwait. The Iraqi army was not much good in its offensives against Iran, and those who start a war should get to first base. The Iraqi army never did that. However, it is good at defence. With the late Member for Inverness —Colonel Maclean—I went to look at the Iraqi army about five years ago and was impressed by its morale and capability.
Opposed to that army is an alliance of 500,000 men led by the United States, and that includes the flower of the American army, the legendary airborne divisions, the marine corps, I think five naval aircraft carrier battle groups and an armada of the most modern aircraft, including the stealth aircraft. The resolution of this juxtaposition hangs on the question which way will it fall? Will it fall to war or to a withdrawal of Saddam Hussein? I doubt whether there is a middle way.
The consequences of a war are totally unpredictable but are bound to be tragic. It may lead to the break-up of Iraq from which some would gain advantage, but that would be a big step in the development of the middle east. If Saddam Hussein withdraws, he will be left intact. Could we live with that? I suppose we could because we lived with the Soviet Union in eastern Europe for 40 years and no doubt we could contain Saddam Hussein if we had to.
We must draw one clear conclusion from the situation. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no doubt effectively undertaken its duty of guarding the holy places of Islam. However, neither King Fahd nor the other rulers in the peninisula are remotely capable of defending its oil resources.
850
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that oil is only one of the factors with which we are concerned. That is correct, but it is an important factor, not in terms of company profits or anything like that but because the whole industrial world depends on the free flow of oil. In addition, some of the biggest sufferers from the present sanctions policy are third world countries which need oil at a reasonable price. This treasure house for Japan, Europe, the United States and the third world must be defended. That means that its security must be underpinned by forces from outside the area. There will have to be, as there presently are in the peninsula, naval and air forces, stockpiles of weapons and ground forces to protect the installations. Who will do that? The United States has given the lead and we must earnestly encourage it to continue to defend the area, whether it be by mopping up the consequences of war or by containing Saddam Hussein if he withdraws intact.
I also argue that it is the duty of Europe to help the United States. I was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in Berlin about the Western European Union. Our German friends must be persuaded that they have a duty as the leading power in Europe to contribute to the collective security of what is as much in Germany's interests as in those of America and Britain. The same is true of the Japanese, who must be persuaded in due course to weigh in in one way or another.
What will be the local response to my proposals? This is an area of great sensitivity. I suppose that the patriarch Abraham was born in what is now Kuwait—so he would have been a Kuwaiti if he had lived in the modern world. The great Muslim religion also originated in what is now Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are proud people, but I think that they have learnt from the experience of Kuwait. They recognise that they were better off when they were protected by a system such as the one that they had in the past. They cannot effectively protect themselves.
That lesson has been learnt not only by the Government but by the people. After all, the people there enjoy the highest standard of living of, I suppose, any area in the world. No taxation, welfare, housing—everything is given to them. All the menial and technical, difficult jobs are done by expatriates. Therefore, I do not think that we have a problem with regard to public opinion locally.
The area is almost uninhabited. If one adds up the populations of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, it is difficult to find 1 million men of fighting age in the whole assembly. All the facilities required for some sort of middle eastern defence organisation are there, already created by the oil companies—harbours, oilfields and the means of communication.
There may be some resentment among other Arabs not in the peninsula. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup talked about an Arab solution. We should be a bit careful about that. An Arab solution has always been to some extent an attempt by the poor Arabs to take over the wealth of the rich Arabs, and that is not necessarily in the interests of the industrial world, or the third world outside the middle east.
There has been talk of an international conference, and the whole problem of the Palestinian issue has naturally arisen again. But nobody can imagine for a moment that when President Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait he was doing so in the interests of the Palestinian people. That

851
would be stretching it a little too far. But if there is to be an international conference, it is essential that there should be an element of stability in the middle east to guarantee any agreements that are reached.
Therefore, I come back to what I said a moment or two ago. We will need to have a middle eastern defence organisation, its command and control to be left to negotiation, in which the leaders of the peninsula will be underpinned and supported certainly by western Europe and the United States and, I hope, in the longer run, by Japan.
I do not believe that any agreement will be reached between the Palestinians and the Israelis unless there is a United States presence in the middle east to guarantee and to uphold any agreement that is reached. Otherwise, these things will either not occur, or, if they do occur, will disintegrate.
I do not believe that the French and the Germans would have been reconciled if we had not had NATO. It was under the umbrella of the American presence that the French went back on their Assembly's decision to oppose German rearmament. They then came to terms and became friends with their erstwhile German opponents. The same will be true of the Israelis. If they are to reach agreement, they will have to make concessions and they will not make concessions unless the agreements can be guaranteed by their longstanding friends, the United States.
But there is perhaps a wider significance in the idea of a middle eastern defence organisation. There has been a lot of talk about a new order. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent have also spoken about it. But there will be other crises. Kuwait will not be the only one.
The social and economic turmoil in Africa and elsewhere in Asia is likely to lead to other military confrontations, perhaps not as serious as this one, perhaps ultimately more serious. Any economic solution that we may devise may need some military backing. The World bank report on Africa seems to point in the same direction.
With the erosion of the threat of Soviet imperialism, it will become more difficult for the United States, in the eyes of its domestic public opinion and locally, to maintain the forces that it maintains today on the continent of Europe around Japan. Some redistribution will be necessary, but geopolitically the Arabian peninsula would seem to be the most suitable and valuable place on which to base a strategic reserve for the new order that we hope will come to be.
There is, of course, great and natural anxiety about the consequences of the breakdown of the GATT talks and the industrial world breaking into three major blocs. There is a risk and a danger of that, but strong forces are also working the other way. The multinational companies will want to bring the three blocs together and oil is the cement which makes it difficult for them to separate.
We in the House are right to see the dangers of the situation in which we live, but I urge right hon. and hon. Members not to lose sight of the opportunities. If anyone had said six months ago, looking at the difficult situation in the middle east, that 500,000 American troops would be sitting there, he would not have been believed. Well, they are there now. How do we make use of them? How do we guide them? How do we work with the Americans to try to bring about solutions not only of the local problems of the middle east but of the wider problems outside?
5.45 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: With other hon. Members, I recently visited the United Kingdom forces in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in accordance with the arrangements made for us by the Ministry of Defence. I was struck by two things. The first was the extraordinary maturity and professionalism of the young men and women of all three services. I came back confirmed in the belief that they should not be exploited and that they should not lightly be exposed to the risk of injury or death that the military option would necessarily involve. I was also struck by the sense of responsibility of senior officers, who seemed to display a realistic awareness of the difficulties of a military solution and of the potentially fearful consequences.
Last week Brigadier Cordingley appeared to have caused some disquiet by the candour that he displayed when talking about the potential for casualties. I do not share the view that he should be the subject of criticism or concern. It is right that we should all understand the magnitude of the military task and the potential consequences if the military option falls to be exercised.
If the military option was to be credible when troops were first deployed, it had to be of such a nature as to put pressure on Saddam Hussein. That continues to be my judgment of the best way in which to proceed, but the events of the past few days cannot be ignored. The United States has agreed to face-to-face talks and has accepted the possibility of a middle east peace conference. In those circumstances, it is idle to pretend that the political climate has not changed. I remain of the view that the military option must be kept credible, because anything which detracts from that credibility may suggest a weakness of resolve that Saddam Hussein would be quick to exploit; but the maintenance of a credible military option is not an alternative to a peaceful solution—it is a necessary component of it. Only the knowledge that the military option is available and may be used as a last resort is likely to compel Saddam Hussein to take seriously any measures which are designed to achieve a peaceful solution. To tell him that the military option was no longer realistically available would be to encourage him to procrastinate.
So long as there is a reasonable prospect of a peaceful solution, the military option should not be used. I do not mean a remote or speculative prospect of a peaceful solution, but a realistic one. Resolution 678, which includes the deadline to which reference has already been made, is permissive, not mandatory. The date of 15 January should not be seen as heralding hostilities, but as permitting them if no peaceful solution involving the implementation of all the United Nations resolutions can be achieved. Efforts at peaceful negotiation should continue up to 15 January and beyond, provided that there are reasonable prospects of success. That must necessarily be a matter of judgment, day by day.
The release of the hostages and the United States' change of attitude have enhanced the prospects for successful negotiations, but it must be made clear in those negotiations that a solution cannot be bought at the expense of the territory of Kuwait. Saddam Hussein must be under no illusions. The United Nations resolutions must be implemented fully—and that means the evacuation of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and the restoration of that country's Government. Once it becomes clear that a full-scale withdrawal is under way,

853
Kuwait's legitimate Government can enter into negotia-tions with Iraq if they choose—indeed, the United Nations resolutions expressly encourage that—but that must be for Kuwait, albeit with assistance and encouragement. Our task is to ensure that the United Nations' resolutions are fully implemented. Anything less would be seen as a reward for Saddam Hussein's aggression and would undoubtedly diminish the United Nations' new-found authority.
The international community's initial disapproval was marked by the imposition of sanctions. There have been some reports from Baghdad, mainly anecdotal, about their effectiveness. It is essential that we have much more analytical evidence as to whether sanctions are having any effect and, if so, how deeply they are biting and how long it will be until they cause such serious disruption as might influence Baghdad to change its policy. If we are to understand the effectiveness of those sanctions, we need more than the anecdotal evidence which is all that we have had so far. Detailed economic analysis of the consequences of the sanctions ought to be easily available.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Finnish ambassador to the Security Council, speaking as chair of the sanctions committee, informed me in the course of a discussion two and a half weeks ago in New York that sanctions were working and proving an effective weapon against Saddam Hussein. It is clear, however, that those sanctions will take time to cripple Iraq.
Mr. Campbell: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but he may agree that he has provided only anecdotal evidence about the extent to which sanctions have been effective. One is entitled to seek clear evidence. Any decision about the use of the military option should be made only in the light of the best possible information available. If the information was that within a matter of weeks the sanctions would prove so effective as to bring down Saddam Hussein or create circumstances in which his policy would necessarily require modification, that would be a compelling argument against exercising the military option. The decision to use the military option must be taken against the fullest possible information—and that, so far, is not available to us.
Our actions in the next few weeks will have as much to do with the long term as with the short term. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was, in his usual courteous way, sceptical of my suggestion in the House on the eve of his departure to the United Nations, to the effect that we should address the long term now, and that long-term peace initiatives ought to be under consideration. Since then, there has been a change of heart by the United States, and I hope that that will persuade the right hon. Gentleman, if not entirely to dissipate his scepticism, then at least to dilute it to some extent. I hope, too, that he will respond favourably to the notion that we should consider the long-term prospects in parallel with, and not separately or distinct from, the short term.
It is essential to ensure that a long-term initiative for peace in the middle east is seen not as a prize won forcibly by Iraqi aggression. As the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, Saddam Hussein did not have the interests of the Palestinians at heart when he invaded Kuwait—nor, I imagine, do the Kuwaitis think
854
that the price that they had to pay was the legitimate price of bringing long-term stability to the middle east. Iraqi aggression in Kuwait was entirely self-serving. A long-term initiative should be presented as recognition of the continuing anxiety of Arab states, which see the Palestinian problem as a continuing cause of instability, and of the contribution that they made to the United Nations' forces. The long-term initiative for peace in the middle east should be seen as an achievement of collective Arab opinion, not as a reward for Iraqi expansionism.
Any such initiative will necessarily require Israel's involvement. If that is given willingly, well and good—but if not, the United States, which is in a stronger position to persuade Israel than any other country, may have to bear that burden. That may have consequences for domestic United States politics, but Israel's participation would be of such significance and importance that if it were unwilling to participate America might find itself called upon to exercise the necessary degree of persuasion.
In the long term, we shall require a security system in the middle east which does not emasculate Iraq but neutralises it. If the United Nations resolutions are implemented, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein would voluntarily surrender his chemical and biological weapons, and the possibility of owning nuclear weapons. If the resolutions are implemented, we know that there will be no majority for military action among those who have gone to the middle east under the auspices of the United Nations. Instead, resort must be made to political means, and one questions what they would be. Answering that will be for all the nations of the middle east, and in particular for the United Kingdom and the United States, who have a presence in the region as a consequence of United Nations resolutions. How we answer that question and create a security system which neutralises the effect of a heavily armed Iraq with more than a million men under arms will be a test for the United Nations, for the United States and almost certainly for all the right hon. and hon. Members of this House.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that earlier Mr. Speaker imposed a limit, and that speeches between now and 8 o'clock should not exceed 10 minutes.
Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you extend that limit to 9 o'clock?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The limits are set out clearly in the Standing Order. Mr. Speaker has used his powers to their full extent.
5.59 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: This debate takes place against the background of the unexpected—to most of us —release of hostages held in Iraq. Our thoughts go out to them and to their families tonight as they begin to return to this country. Above all, our thoughts are with those people who have been hiding in Kuwait for the past four months, and also those who have been held in so-called target areas. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that they will need all the help and support that they can get. Unless one has lived in such conditions for a long time, one cannot understand their effects.

855
I can look back over many years of service in the Army. The period that I remember most clearly was that sad and unhappy time in 1956 when Nasser nationalised the Suez canal. By good chance, or misfortune, I was away from the middle east, attending a course in England at the time. I came to the House and sat in the Strangers' Gallery to listen to all the wise words. I went back to my battalion in Cyprus heartened, because I heard speech after speech in the opening debate making it clear that aggression must be countered and that we could not allow it to stand.
I remember only too well the eve of the landings in Port Said. I commanded a parachute company. We were awaiting the order to move in. As always, the overseas service of the BBC was excellent, and I listened to some of the final debates in the House on the crisis. Those of us at the sharp end did not know whether we were coming or going. Many of us wished that, instead of going, we were returning to Cyprus and playing no part in that confused operation whatsoever.
I strongly disapproved of the operation at Port Said and, as a result, I left the Army, having spent 13 happy years there from the age of 16 to 29. I would not be here to make this speech if I had remained in the Army; I should be retired and probably sitting quite happily in Dorset.
Frankly, we can all be ashamed of what happened in the aftermath of Suez. Perhaps we would not be talking about Iraq today if it had not been for Suez, with Nurisaid and the king being dragged through the streets and murdered, the riots in Jordan, and all the other repercussions. No one can tell what may happen in the aftermath of an operation like Suez, or, for that matter, Kuwait.
The same applies today, but, throughout the present crisis, the unanimity between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government has been heartening. That is the best thing. However, I am slightly worried that when the Opposition Front Bench spokesman talked of how long we should carry on with sanctions there was a suggestion that it could be open-ended, which perhaps left a way out, if it should be required by the Opposition. I hope that it will not materialise.
We are delighted that our people are coming home, but what of the Kuwaitis left behind? So far, too few hon. Members have taken the Kuwaitis into account. Day after day I have watched the Kuwaiti ambassador sitting in the Strangers' Gallery, listening to our debates. My heart goes out to him, and to the 100,000 Kuwaitis who have been dispossessed, killed, and thrown to one side, the intention being to destroy their country. I find it unbelievable that we can debate this issue so coolly, and talk about waiting three months, six months, nine months or another year. Sheikh Ali al-Khalifa al Sabah, the Minister of Finance, came to our Conservative party conference in Bournemouth. He told us that they could not wait 40 years, 40 months or 40 days. In the 40 days which have passed since then, even more horrifying action has been taken in Kuwait by the Iraqis.
I have not had any recent meetings with Saddam Hussein—although I spent two and a half hours with him about three and a half years ago—so I am not well versed. However, I did not take kindly to him, and I did not think that he was a very nice chap. Other hon. Members may have found him more amenable—I am a fairly junior
856
personage. Certainly at the height of the last Basra offensive he was tough, determined, knew exactly where he was going, and would not take advice from anyone.
I could pretend to have some military knowledge and could give my estimates of casualties and other battle figures, but I shall not do so. I shall end my speech by quoting the words of the Bishop of Oxford last Friday morning on "Thought for Today". If we listen to the words of a man of God, speaking about the problem that he, the Church and indeed all of us face, we might learn a little. He said that:
"The human response to the announcement"—
that all hostages, guests and those in hiding are free—
"is natural and straightforward. The political response is, alas, more complex. If hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, then Saddam Hussein's hypocrisy can be welcomed. But of course it is a calculated move. Public support for a war in the United States has shown signs of waning. This action, like the T.V. appearance of Saddam Hussein with children, is designed to convey the message that he is really quite a nice guy. If the hostages are all back safely and Hussein's really not too bad, why bother about someone else's country a long way away, especially when it means risking horrendous casualties? This is the mood which he will count on—one which will allow him to retain Kuwait. So it is important to keep the international resolve firm that he must withdraw.
In recent years the churches have, understandably, put peace high on their agenda. But peace is inseparable from justice, of which it is the fruit. The role of the churches is not simply to work and pray for peace but for just order. Naked aggression must not be allowed to pay; the brutal annexation of one country by another must be rectified. The integrity of national boundaries is to be respected and upholding the rule of international law is important for the whole world … There are dangers in being specific. Nevertheless, on this issue I want to pray not only for peace but for the withdrawal cif Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and continued determination in the international community to see this happen".
I think that those words would be echoed by 95 per cent. of hon. Members, and I pray to God that it comes about and that this evil man will withdraw.
6.8 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: I hope that one consequence of this debate will be that we shall have no more nonsense from the Opposition Front Bench about hon. Members who argue for caution in dealing with this issue being appeasers. It is striking that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—I hope that I can include myself—fought hard against appeasement by the Tory Government in 1938, so we know what we are talking about. Also, we have all, except I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, served in the forces, and we know what is involved in a war.
Of course, we cannot rule out the use of force if Saddam Hussein fails to leave Kuwait, but the resolution just passed by the United Nations does not commit us to use force immediately the deadline is passed on 15 January, nor does it commit us to use force. It commits us to use
"all necessary means … to restore … peace and security"
to the middle east. I shall return to those words in a moment.
What concerns many of us here and in the United States is that President Bush, by his words and deeds, is making it more difficult to use the necessary means that will restore peace and stability to the middle east. He is threatening to commit us all to a course that will destroy the possibility of peace and stability for at least a generation. I am disturbed by attempts by the Pentagon to misrepresent the value of sanctions, as it did in Secretary Cheney's evidence to Congress the other day. In answer to the hon. and

857
learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), we have had a detailed account of the efficacy of sanctions from the head of the CIA when he gave evidence to Congress. He estimated that
"Iraq is now deprived of more than 90 per cent. of the goods and services it needs, and that by next spring only some energy-related and military industries will still be able to operate … the equivalent of 43 per cent. of both the Iraqi and Kuwaiti GNPs has effectively already been eroded."
We know that by next summer Iraqi guns, tanks and aircraft will be running out of spares and that they have no money with which to buy more. They may also be running out of fuel.
Mr. James Schlesinger, who has been head of the CIA, Secretary for Energy, and Secretary for Defence in the United States under both Democratic and Republican Administrations, told Congress the other day that when sanctions were first adopted, the American authorities knew that they would take about 12 months to work. Those of us who studied the problem warned the House in the debate in September that it would be a long time before sanctions would work. However, many of us believe that, given time, they will work.
I am disturbed, as I hope are other hon. Members, by the deliberate disinformation about Iraq's nuclear capability that has been spread by the Defence Intelligence Agency, which is a public relations organisation for Mr. Cheney. It suggested that the Iraqis are only a few months away from producing a nuclear weapon and that that was an argument for the early use of force. Even the Israelis, who have the biggest interest in exaggerating the Iraqi capability, admitted that an Iraqi bomb is years away. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which regularly inspects Iraqi facilities and did so only a few weeks ago from 19 to 22 November, said that there was no evidence of a diversion of nuclear materials. A Financial Times writer was correct in saying last week that Iraq is no more nuclear capable now than it was 10 years ago.
What worries me most is that the sort of war that the United States is now planning to fight would not contribute to peace and security in the middle east and is not necessary. As the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, they have now put more men there than they had in Germany to confront the Russians at the height of the cold war. To use those forces would mean an economic catastrophe and political instability for many years. Incidentally, in answer to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), it is doubtful whether one building would be left standing in Kuwait after such a war. So let us not have crocodile tears about what happens to the people in Kuwait. The sort of war that the Americans are planning to fight would probably mean the death by bombing of almost every man, woman, child and living thing in Kuwait City at least.
The economic consequences would be oil at $45 a barrel next year and $35 a barrel in 1992. That would be a doomsday scenario. It would mean disaster for eastern Europe and the third world, would tip the United States and much of western Europe into deep recession and would probably produce the collapse of the American banking system.
The political consequences would be no less serious. Iran and Syria would be in the saddle if Iraq was destroyed in the sort of war that America is planning to fight. That
858
is just after the west and the Soviet Union have spent 10 years arming Iraq to prevent precisely that possibility. It would undoubtedly lead to the collapse of the Gulf regimes particularly if, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested, the Israelis came into the war on the Anglo-Saxon side from the word go.
We must give sanctions at least another 12 months to work. That will create difficulties because of what has been done already. The morale of the American troops will be a problem, but it would be possible, as Admiral Crowe and General Jones suggested in Congress—both of them oppose war now—to rotate the forces arriving in January to use with the forces already there.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that we must support peace initiatives from the Arab countries, particularly those under way from Jordan and Algeria. We must start planning now for stability in the Gulf after Saddam Hussein withdraws, and that will include a settlement of the Israeli problem. If Saddam Hussein is to give up his nuclear ambitions, something will have to be done about Israeli nuclear weapons, which are an incentive to the Arab countries to follow suit.
The Gulf will remain unstable however the crisis is resolved, and there is an overwhelming case for reducing the west's dependence on oil from the Gulf. American experts have calculated that if America had maintained the energy-saving programmes that it followed between 1977 and 1985, it would now be totally independent of Gulf oil. If the Americans taxed gasolene to the level at which we tax it here, it would solve their budget problem and encourage the use of smaller cars. If the Americans simply replaced their older cars that now do only 19 miles to the gallon with some that do 29 miles to the gallon, it would have no need of Gulf oil.
To quote a well-known source, there is, in fact, an alternative. However, the alternative requires patience and some lead from Her Majesty's Government. The Foreign Secretary's speech today—as was detected by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—was significantly different in style and content from speeches that he made on earlier occasions. I am glad that it took only a day or two after the departure of the previous Prime Minister from No. 10 for him to recognise Syria and talk about dropping the Nuremberg elements of the United Nations posture on Iraq. There have also been important changes on Europe and defence. He has now agreed to support the zero option for land-based missiles in Europe and he made an interesting speech yesterday. However, I tried to reconcile that with the rococo variations played by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the same day. Those of us who study the piano—that includes the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup when he is awake—all know that sometimes the variations bear little resemblance to the original tune.
I believe that if the Government take my advice, they will earn the heartfelt gratitude of our allies, our friends in the United States and the Soviet Union and, above all, the British people.
6.18 pm
Sir Peter Blaker: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) in expressing my sympathy for the hostages, who have suffered danger and anxiety, and for their relatives. However, I have been worried by some of the criticisms

859
that have been made by some of the returning hostages about the conduct of our embassies in Kuwait and in Baghdad. Some of those criticisms are based on misunderstanding. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out, the ambassador in Kuwait, Michael Weston, and Mr. Banks, his only colleague there, have been incarcerated in the embassy, so it has not been possible, since the beginning of the problem, for them to get out to help the British hostages in Kuwait. They have not been able to help in providing food, for example, or in the elimination of rats or in improving living conditions.
It has been suggested that our embassy in Baghdad has not given sufficient help in getting the hostages out. The reality is that the British and American hostages have been discriminated against by the Iraqis because Britain and the United States have taken the strongest stand against the Iraqi aggression. We should take careful note of what happens now because the determination and resolve that the British and American Governments have shown in pressing for successive United Nations resolutions and for a firm posture against Saddam Hussein have resulted in the release of all the hostages. If they are released in the next few days, it will mean that our approach has been extremely effective.
Mr. Tom Cox: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Blaker: No; I do not have enough time.
We should pay tribute to the ambassador and his colleague in Kuwait and to the ambassador and his staff in Baghdad.
We should continue to hold open the possibility of war between the coalition and Iraq. I am not calling for war itself. If war comes, it will be because Saddam Hussein has refused to obey the United Nations resolutions. It will also be a result of the need to protect the world's oil supplies and I see nothing wrong in accepting that fact. We are talking not about the profits of the oil companies, but about keeping the wheels of industry and of agriculture moving all over the world. We are talking about providing the necessities of life for the world's people, including the pensioners in my constituency and in all the other constituencies. We are talking about providing the means of life for the Indian peasant and for the African peasant. Protecting the supply of oil for the world is a legitimate purpose for us.
If war comes, it will do so because we have to show that aggression does not pay. It is ironic that, having successfully operated a policy of deterrence in Europe for 40 years, we have failed to operate a policy of deterrence in the middle east. We must now do the next best thing. We must hold open the possibility of war to redress the wrong that Saddam Hussein has done. That does not mean, as has been alleged, that the drums of war are beating on the Conservative Benches, but only that we believe that, without the possibility of war, we shall not oblige Saddam Hussein to surrender to the sanctions of the United Nations. In my experience, it is those who have known war who hate war the most. Let us also be clear that we are not talking about aggression, as some correspondents have alleged when writing to me. We are talking about liberation. The aggression has already taken place, so it is the liberation of Kuwait that is at issue.
If, regrettably, war comes, it will be nasty and it will not necessarily be over in a short time. I do not trust those who
860
say that a quick surgical strike by air will be effective. It is almost certain to be a war of tanks and of infantry, and of occupying ground, which will mean substantial human casualties. It is possible that gas will be used. Another point, which other hon. Members have not mentioned, is that some countries, including Britain, America and some Arab countries, will suffer casualties whereas the Germans and the Japanese, who have at least as much at stake, will not. That will cause political problems.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), among others, referred to another reason for ensuring that Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait when he said that the United Nations must not be allowed to fail in this enterprise. After 40 years of frustration caused by the obstructiveness of the Soviet Union and, sometimes, of China, the United Nations now has a magnificent opportunity to operate as its founders planned. A successful outcome to the whole affair would give the United Nations a new momentum to carry it forward, as was mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), to the resolution of other problems, whereas the failure of our enterprise could set the United Nations back by a decade.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that there must be a peacekeeping presence in the middle east after the immediate problem has ended, whether through with-drawal by Saddam Hussein or through war. The Iraqis have an army of 1 million men and they have the largest population of any Arab country in the immediate area. There must, therefore, be a multilateral or some other force in the area to prevent the repetition of aggression and it should be under the United Nations. It should, of course, contain Arab elements, but it will also have to contain non-Arab elements and some NATO countries. In that connection I, too, was interested by the speech made in Berlin yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
We shall have to take account of the chemical warfare capability and of the nuclear potential of Iraq. All that means that a financial burden and other burdens will face us, if I am right in my assessment. This will be an expensive operation, but it will be less expensive than keeping our forces in Germany for the past 40 years and it will certainly be less expensive than a renewal of instability in the Gulf.
6.26 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: From day one, the Opposition have taken the attitude that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) set out at the beginning of the debate. We have supported the United Nations as the most appropriate international body and means of resolving conflict between states. We see it as the body to be charged with enforcing international humanitarian law, as set out in the Hague convention of 1907 and in the Geneva convention of 1949. If properly enforced, those conventions should be more than sufficient to dissuade or prohibit states from carrying out an illegal agenda of occupation and annexation.
At this stage, we need to keep our nerve. Gathered together in the Security Council permanent membership are some of the most flagrant perpetrators of breaches of resolutions by the Security Council and by the General Assembly. If we keep our nerve today and insist on the

861
primacy of the United Nations, all the hon. Members who are concerned about other areas of the world—I will not go over them all—may feel confident that they can call to account the nation states that breach such resolutions.
I pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I, too, believe that we need to do more than simply restate our support for the United Nations. There should not merely be parallel discussions; there are other actions that we can take.
In the declaration issued in Dublin on 26 June this year, the European Community leaders broke new ground in referring, for the first time, to the obligation placed on states parties to the fourth Geneva convention and especially to article 1 of that convention, which states:
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances".
By undertaking not only to respect the convention but to ensure respect for it in all circumstances, states parties, which include all member states of the Community, have taken upon themselves an ongoing responsibility to ensure that the convention is respected by its co-parties whenever and wherever it applies. The reference to the article 1 obligation in the Dublin declaration was a milestone in the recognition of the political significance of protecting human rights in the pursuit of conflict resolution.
The fourth Geneva convention sets out mandatory rules governing the conduct of an occupying power. The rules not only offer an important degree of protection of the most basic human rights of the civilian population of occupied territories but place important restraints and disincentives on the prosecution by the occupying power of an agenda of conquest, annexation and demographic transformation, by rendering the agenda illegal in its own right and by limiting the scope and nature of actions that an occupant may take against the population of an occupied territory.
In the Dublin declaration the Twelve combined their first reference to the article 1 obligation with a call for further action in accordance with the convention. The Council also took the opportunity to support a role for the United Nations in protecting the Palestinian population and the west bank and Gaza. In November, the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, in his report to the Security Council following the Dome of the Rock massacre in Jerusalem on 8 October, made the same points in greater detail and pointed to a way in which positive co-operation might be achieved for the objective of securing implementation in the occupied territories of the fourth Geneva convention.
Like the European Council, Mr. de Cuellar took note of the regrettable fact that Israel has not responded positively to the many calls to recognise the applicability of or abide by the fourth Geneva convention in the territories that it has occupied since 1967, including calls to that effect by the United Nations Security Council. If members of the European Community Council were to support Perez de Cuellar in his most recent comments and suggestions that there might be a convening of the states signatories to the fourth Geneva convention, it would not necessarily give Saddam Hussein any succour but it would demonstrate to the Arab states in particular and to the rest
862
of the world that the Security Council is determined to continue to ensure that all states abide by Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.
It is important to remind ourselves that, right now, there are attempts by the United States not to have that debate in the Security Council. It would surely give confidence to Arab countries if the United States were to allow it to go ahead.
All efforts to find a just and durable negotiated settlement to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians are doomed to frustration unless and until the Israeli Government and their electorate are fully convinced that they do not have the option of asserting and exercising sovereignty in any part of the territories that have been occupied since 1967 and that, to the contrary, full withdrawal is essential. That is exactly the same message as we are giving to Saddam Hussein. My right hon. and hon. Friends must carefully consider the message that they will send to Saddam Hussein if they divide the House tonight.
We must also make certain that we ask for some assurances from the Government. One or two worrying comments have been made. In particular, the committee that has been formed in the United States by Richard Perle and his friends—the committee to remove Saddam Hussein and his military power—is one from which we must distance ourselves at every opportunity.
Equally, if the Kuwaitis and Iraqis, even before the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi forces from Kuwait, decide on some new arrangement in the area, the Government must accept that that will be the decision of those two nation states and that, provided that Saddam Hussein continues to meet Security Council resolutions, it is up to those two states to decide what arrangements to make between themselves to resolve the problem.
We must also make it clear that if we are to deal adequately with military power blocs in the middle east, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, we must also deal with the nuclear capacity and military power that Israel exercises in the area. It is not only the nuclear and chemical potential of the Iraqis with which we must deal.
The occupation and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq has raised questions about the new order in the post-cold war world and has brought to prominence the topic of international law, in particular laws of war, including those on belligerent occupation. There seems to be a growing realisation of the need to give effect to the provisions of the fourth Geneva convention to protect the civilian population under belligerent occupation. All hon. Members will recognise and welcome that. In particular, there is a growing awareness of the bottom line of non-selectivity in applying and enforcing the law. We must restate that point during such debates.
Although the search for a peace process appears to be effectively stalled in other parts of the world, we must say to those whom we represent and the families of service men and service women who are presently in the Gulf that it is our determination to support the United Nations so that those young people will not need to go to war again. Our determination to support the United Nations will surely convince Saddam Hussein that he must withdraw from Kuwait according to the very same United Nations resolutions.
6.36 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Four months and one week after Saddam Hussein's wicked and brutal invasion and annihilation of a tiny state that is friendly to us—an act of unjustified, naked aggression which the civilised world universally condemned and against which it has taken a firm stand through the United Nations—where are we? Saddam Hussein is still raping, pillaging, destroying and laughing at us for our feeble response, and where are we?
Yes, we have 450,000 troops in the desert, but how long will it be before they no longer want to remain there or no longer can remain there while Congress begins to weaken and its support peters out? Yes, we have firm resolutions in the United Nations, and ultimatums, but how long will that firmness last? Yes, we have imposed economic sanctions and there is some food rationing in Iraq, although food is being stolen from Kuwait, and there is some petrol rationing, but I think that that has been discontinued. Perhaps there will be some spare parts that will help to grind Iraqi industry to a halt because it cannot get any, and the water purification plants may fail. But will that happen before the will of Congress and some United Nations powers ebb and fail? Will that happen before Kuwait is entirely obliterated by Saddam Hussein?
What must he be thinking? He will be wondering whether we are any more than paper tigers. He sees the developing split in the United States Congress. He sees the demonstrations in the streets of the United States. He sees joy on the faces of the families of the hostages and gratitude to him for his acts of mercy. He sees those, such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on "Newsnight" the other night, who talk about giving the islands and the oil wells to Saddam Hussein. He welcomes visits by world dignitaries such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and former Prime Ministers of Japan. He will read my right hon. Friend's speech with considerable satisfaction. He welcomes indications that an Arab-Israeli settlement and a conference are very much in the mind of our Government when the only thing that should be in their mind is Saddam Hussein's aggression.
He asks for time to negotiate and the United States Secretary of State is going to see him and speak to him. Why? Would anyone blame Saddam Hussein for thinking that Baker is going to negotiate, particularly when he reads sees and hears speeches in the House such as that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East calling for negotiations, playing down any possibility of a threat of nuclear power developing in Iraq, speaking of linkage with the Arab-Israeli dispute and effectively saying, "No war at any cost"?
Would not Saddam Hussein be tempted to think that we are all losing our nerve, and that, if he stays in Kuwait or withdraws only partially, we shall risk not one life to force him out? Is that not the stench of appeasement in the air? Is not appeasement totally unacceptable to nations like the United Kingdom with any self-respect or any regard for the international rule of law?
Mr. Ron Brown: Will the hon.. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lawrence: I shall give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be quick, because I have only 10 minutes.
Mr. Brown: I am not an appeaser, but, like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been out there, at the sharp end and——
Mr. Lawrence: That is long enough.
Mr. Brown: Can I read out a letter from the British business community to the——
Mr. Lawrence: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.
Mr. Brown: This is important.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has the floor, has decided that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has had long enough.
Mr. Lawrence: So what can we do——
Mr. Brown: This letter is not from members of the Labour party.
Mr. Lawrence: We should make clear, as we have never made clear before——
Mr. Brown: They have views that should be heard. Why is the hon. and learned Gentleman afraid to hear them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is hoping to catch the eye of the Chair. He is not improving his chances.
Mr. Lawrence: I have learnt the lesson that I should not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I was asking what we should then do. We should make clear, if we have not made clear enough before, that if economic sanctions do not work soon in securing the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, we should drag him out by force. There can be no more delay and no more dithering. What should "soon" mean? It should mean 15 January 1991, a date beyond which resolution 678 says that "all necessary measures"—meaning force, because what else on earth could it mean?—can be taken to supplement economic sanctions and drive him out.
If we do not set a date, there will be no sanction worthy of the name, and the rule of law with no enforceable sanction is no rule of law. If we do not set a date and enforce that date, Saddam Hussein will win. There will be nothing to stop him taking over other countries, safe in the knowledge that we do not have the necessary will to stop him. There will be nothing to stop other Saddam Husseins from doing the same thing, and the world would end up in chaos.
If we climb down and refuse to set a date, the greatest potential force for peace and security in the world—the United Nations—will be, as the Leader of the Opposition said, little more than a public mourner, spectator and charity worker. I would add that it would be little more than a gutless, hopeless institution, incapable of standing up for the rule of law and what is right. If we climb down because we refuse to set a date, world peace will be threatened. The aggression will go on until we have to fight, and when we have to fight the war will be far bloodier than we have envisaged.
Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against his own people, so he is unlikely to refrain from using them against others. He has been responsible for the deaths of 1 million people in the Iran-Iraq war, so he is unlikely to

865
be worried about the loss of life. He is developing a nuclear capability, which may be ready for use within the year, or sooner. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East quoted from the International Atomic Energy Agency. If he were here, could he have told us whether it had investigated the uranium mines in the north of Iraq from which it is said that Saddam Hussein is even now mining the uranium that will give him the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons? If we are frightened to stand up to Saddam Hussein now, will we not be even more frightened to do so when he has nuclear weapons?
There is a fair measure of consensus in the House of Commons which has not been revealed by the speeches made today. Some speeches from the Conservative Benches—in particular that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—and most from the Labour Benches have been contrary to the line taken by both the Government and the Opposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup drew an analogy with Kennedy and Khrushchev over the Bay of Pigs and spoke of how discussion and negotiations could work. That analogy is so false that I cannot even begin to understand how he could have made it.
There are two fundamental differences. First, Saddam Hussein invaded an innocent. harmless country in flagrant defiance of international law, and destroyed that country, murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of people. That is something that Khrushchev had not done before embarking on the Bay of Pigs operation. He never invaded Cuba. Secondly, Saddam Hussein's action has been condemned time and again by the United Nations. Khrushchev's actions before the Bay of Pigs were not so condemned. It is difficult to see how my right hon. Friend could have seen a similarity between the two events. He has given a misleading and damaging signal to Saddam Hussein which I utterly deplore.
The issue that we have to address, and about which there is insufficient agreement in the House, however much other consensus there may be, is timing. How much longer do we give Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations resolution? Do we wait until our troops have lost the will or ability to enforce sanctions; until the Arab countries supporting the United Nations get tired of our dithering and make their own peace with Saddam Hussein; or until Saddam Hussein has developed nuclear weapons and made it impossible for us to force him out?
I hope and pray that Saddam Hussein will withdraw before 15 January 1991 so that war is avoided. If he is to do that, he will have to start soon. I hope and pray that he has no inclination to turn his attention towards Israel when he does withdraw, or truly terrible bloodshed will follow. If my hopes and prayers are not answered, then Saddam Hussein must be forced out. We can follow no other course if we want to maintain the integrity of the United Nations and ensure stability and relative peace in the world.
6.47 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The likelihood of war in the Gulf seems to have diminished a little. The confrontation remains stark, but the atmo-sphere has eased. This may be deceptive. For, even before Saddam Hussein's decision to release the hostages, it had
866
become clear that the balance of advantage has passed to him, and this was predictable. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had come to present a face of monolithic resolution to the world, in marked contrast to the discordant voices of the west. As the timetable of the allied military preparedness to act appeared to slip, public doubts grew about whether war is justifiable, acceptably feasible or even likely to take place.
Since August, President Bush and his team have done their best to persuade Americans and their representatives in Congress that the threat of imminent war against Iraq must be maintained, but the critical clinching reason for a fight still eludes the Administration. The President has been forced on the defensive as he seeks to convince the world and domestic opinion that all the options for peace have been exhausted before the momentous decision to go to war in the Gulf is taken. What will be the position if those options are kept open for a further 12 months, say on the ground of sanctions? I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is no longer in his place.
The memory of Vietnam is also a factor in the growing peace movement in America, as is the suspicion that once again American youth is being called upon to die in defence of Europe's interests. This lack of cohesion and solidarity has painfully exposed the underlying divisions in the western alliance, and reinforced the need to see European security in a broader global context, and for the alliance to think long and hard concerning its future policy towards threats beyond its traditional area of competence.
In contrast, Saddam has shown that his nerves are stronger than those of western democracies. He knows that talking will not by itself stop war, but he also knows that it offers him his best hope of exploiting American domestic weakness and dividing the international alliance against him. He will have been encouraged by the weekend headlines in our own quality press. The Sunday Times, for example, stated:
"Iraq scents victory as Gulf peace deal looms",
The Sunday Telegraph stated:
"America insists: we're not going soft on Saddam".
Those were the headlines just two days ago.
Yet, despite all that has happened since August, the essentials remain unchanged. The invasion of Kuwait in August was an act of aggression. The United Nations, in the most impressive fashion, acted against Saddam Hussein. Now that the United States and the United Kingdom and some of their allies have committed their armed forces and prestige, the blow to international order would be intolerable if Saddam were able to extract any victory or face-saving compromise.
Saddam has also turned the Gulf crisis into a crisis for democracy. He has raised with brutal clarity the central issue at stake: are western democracies resilient enough to resist blackmail or are they too short-sighted to perceive threats to their longer-term interests?
So there can be no compromise on Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. There can be no question of profit to the aggressor. If aggression is permitted to succeed, other acts of brutality by bigger nations against their smaller neighbours will be encouraged. So there can be no weakening of our position. However, there can be no western objection to subsequent talks about disputed territories and their borders. Nor can there be any valid

867
objection to a possible mutual non-aggression pact, despite the repeated demand of The Sunday Times for Saddam to be toppled.
There can be no accommodation of the issue of linkage. Saddam has been demanding that Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait be linked to Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories and Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon. This is unacceptable: neither Israel nor Syria can be charged with aggression, as Saddam can. However, both issues must resume their place at the very top of the middle east agenda if Iraq withdraws from Kuwait. Palestinians, no less than Kuwaitis, are entitled to equal justice under international law.
What disturbs me most of all is the extent to which the retreat into moral as well as political isolationism by certain sections of western opinion, some of which are represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, threatens to undermine any chance of the United Nations ever asserting a collective will again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East referred to the 1930s. Perhaps I can take just a few seconds to tell the House that I did my first canvassing for the Labour party when I was 12 years old at the behest of my headmaster. I canvassed for the League of Nations and for what was then Labour party policy—collective security. Ten years later, I was a casualty of war and for many years was 100 per cent. disabled. I am still 30 per cent. disabled. I am sorry to have to say that because I know that the House does not really want to listen to it, but I must say it to leave the House in no doubt that I do not address the issues of war and peace lightly. By God, I know and I reflect on the missed opportunities of the 1930s. I do not want collective security to fail again. That is the big issue for me. Saddam must not be given any ground for believing that he can undermine international order, that there is any weakening in our resolve or that this country and our allies will not go through with what they have threatened for so many months. What is certain is that no future challenge can even be credibly approached by the United Nations unless the present challenge is overcome.
I suspect that most hon. Members recognise that sanctions will not be effective within an acceptable time scale. I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East with great respect, as I always do, but, if it comes, the war will have a legal and moral basis. We all recognise that war is probable, although the timing will be subject to the constraints of campaigning weather, but the present "window" will last only until the end of February. We all profoundly regret that probability of war. However, if we will the end, we must be especially concerned for the means and particularly for our service men and women in the Gulf area. We must have the greatest confidence in them, especially those who will shortly come together—I hope—in the United Kingdom's first armoured division. I know and have the greatest respect and admiration for the United States' first and second armoured divisions, but a more effective or distinguished fighting unit will not be deployed in the Gulf than our own first armoured division. Our prayers will always be with the service men and women.
However, none of us can dispute that a compromise that leaves Saddam with any portion of his booty would be a lasting blow to the interests of the whole world. This is not a time for dithering and wobbling. I suggest with great respect that our resolution must match that of our fighting men if we are to be worthy of them.
6.55 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet: We have just heard a very good speech from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). The whole House listened to every word. Saddam Hussein need only take into account the fact that if he complies with resolution 660 and vacates Kuwait, that will be the end of all this. He can ensure peace by doing just that.
The way in which the crisis began is extraordinary. On 1 August there was a conference in Saudi Arabia at which the Iraqis were represented and Saddam Hussein gave an assurance that he would not attack Kuwait. On 2 August, he attacked Kuwait. What account can we take of his later assurances and representations? Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has used gas against the Kurds, who are an ethnic minority in his territories, and he may well use it against other people. He is not a humane man who can look after children. He is a man who determined on his major course and, if he can divert the course of justice, he will take us to that end.
Saddam Hussein has destroyed Kuwait. He has virtually razed that country to the ground. According to a report in the newspapers this morning, the damage is estimated at $60 billion. We have learnt from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that the loss to Jordan amounts to the considerable sum of about $60 million. Obviously, if there is to be a settlement, there will have to be payment of reparation. However, as Saddam Hussein has a significant world indebtedness of about $80 billion, he cannot pay reparations. He will just turn aside and say, "This is not my responsibility".
We have been told that there will be an Arab solution and that we should let the Arabs decide this among themselves. However, the Arab solution will simply consist of saying, "Look at the great man—the new Saladin— in the middle east and subserve to his interests." In other words, other states will back off, which would be extremely detrimental to the western world.
My next illustration is in a world context. If one takes the reserves of crude oil, measured in billions of barrels, one can say that the Iraqis have 100 billion barrels. If one adds to that amount the reserves of Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, the total amounts to 30 per cent. of the world's reserves of crude oil. If one adds to that Saudi Arabia, which itself can be compromised, it brings the total to 53·5 per cent. of the world's reserves of crude oil. Gentlemen may say, "Let us turn it aside—the fields will not be plundered; Hussein will make them available to other nations afterwards because he will have to build his economy." Let us make no mistake about it. The price of oil would rocket to about $90 per barrel. Saddam Hussein would want his pound of flesh to pay for the campaign that he has waged against the Iranians. Could we afford to pay that price?
There is another interesting point to be made about production. Saddam Hussein has mentioned that he wants a simple solution. He wants the territory to be divided into two. He does not want to withdraw entirely from Kuwait. He wants the Rumaila field and two significant islands which give him access to the Gulf. Taking into account the reserves of oil that he has recently discovered, his barrelage would have built up considerably. His only rival in the middle east would be Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia agrees

869
that the Iraqis are great competitors. Iraq is not a great competitor of Iran, because Iran's reserves tend to be stabilised at present.
In the western world we are told by people such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that we can become independent from the middle east, but how can that possibly be achieved in the next 20 or 30 years when the middle east countries have the supplies available and are prepared to yield them to the western world? Iraq has several fields in production and about 10 fields under development. It is short of foreign exchange, so it cannot develop the fields properly. There is anxiety that the Iraqis will put a match to all the fields in operation, even including their own, but such fields can automatically be shut off if they are worked properly and fires can be put out.
Of course, war is costly in human life, but the cost of doing nothing or virtually nothing can be even more costly over the course of time. Democracies are not good at looking after their own defence. Many of us who remember the world stage between 1933 and 1939 recognise that it would have been cheaper to have a war in 1935 than it was when the war came in 1939. We were unprepared because of suggestions made in the House, and we lost many people at great cost.
My message to the House is that we have major problems in the middle east. I want to be constructive.
Mr. Ron Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Trevor Skeet: No. I do not have the time, and I learned from the previous Conservative speaker that the Opposition's questions are not sound.
If the world could only get together a concert of nations to guarantee the boundaries of the middle east states, as the Antarctica convention countries have come together to guarantee the lands of Antarctica, something similar could be established in the middle east. We could not allow Saddam Hussein to spill into other territories. If the ambition and tyranny of other nations could be contained, we could have security.
Saddam Hussein is worried about two principal points. First, there is his problem with the Rumaila field, of which nine tenths is within his territory now and only one tenth in Kuwait. He could refer that boundary dispute to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, where the matter could be simply resolved. There is broad experience of such disputes. Many of the United Kingdom fields go over into Norway and other territories. We work out unitisation agreements and settle such matters amicably. If Saddam Hussein wanted to settle the dispute amicably, he could do so. There is no reason for him to take over northern Kuwait. He could settle the matter either by a unitisation agreement or by reference to the International Court of Justice.
Saddam Hussein's second problem is access to the Gulf waters. After an eight-year war he surrendered all the territory around the beginning of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway. That territory would have given him access to the Gulf, but he now wants the two Kuwaiti islands. With his consent, his claim to the two pieces of territory could be referred to the international court. However, the matter must be referred by mutual consent. I am certain that Kuwait would give that consent, but Saddam Hussein
870
would not give his. He claims the area as the 19th province of Iraq. If he lost at the international court, he would have to concede the territory and world security would again be secured.
We must be careful that the democracies are not taken for a long ride in seeking to maintain peace at the expense of principle. They must not be taken on a long journey which will take them nowhere but merely result in an accumulation of problems in the middle east which will eventually cause complete disaster. I hope that wise counsel will prevail.
7.6 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: At least today the Government have spoken with complete clarity. When the vote takes place—for there will be a vote—the meaning of a vote in the Government Lobby will be clear. The Government said in September that article 51 provided the legal basis for war. Today the Foreign Secretary said that the resolution carried by the Security Council provided a political authority for war. I and others have pressed the Government on whether they feel that the House of Commons has any right to vote on the matter. It does not have that right within our constitution, but that does not exclude the possibility of a vote. We have been told no. Combined with that we have a warning to British residents in terms which imply that military action may be likely.
I repeat what I said a moment ago. There will be a vote tonight. Those who vote with the Government, from whatever party, will be cited by the Government as supporting the interpretation of the legal and political position that I have just described.
By contrast, I and some of my hon. Friends have tabled a motion which says that
"this House believes that a peaceful solution to all the problems of the Middle East is both possible and necessary within the framework of the United Nations Charter and the resolutions of the Security Council; and therefore declines to support the threat or use of military force by the United States of America or Britain."
There is no hint of appeasement in that because it is a reference to the United Nations resolution and charter. So tonight the choice is stark. I shall not go into the effects of war in any detail because it has been dwelt on by others. The consequence of war will not fall on those who think it right to fight one. No one in this House will be killed in a war. Many hundreds of thousands of innocent people—our own soldiers, American soldiers, Iraqis, Kuwaitis and Arabs in the middle east—will undoubtedly be killed by a massive exchange of the most modern weapons which, in many cases, were sold to both sides at a great profit by British and American arms manufacturers. We should realise that.
Chemical weapons are very likely to be used. They have been used before. The Americans used them in Vietnam. Agent orange was a chemical weapon used to defoliate the forest. Chemical weapons have been used by the Iraqis. Nuclear weapons are possessed by Israel and, indeed, by United States and British forces.
In the event of a war, the price of oil would put it beyond the range of the purchasing capacity of the third world. It is possible that more would die of starvation in the third world as a result of economic chaos than as a direct result of the war. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) constantly emphasises the

871
environmental aspect; a war with Iraq would probably lead to the greatest environmental catastrophe since the atom bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
During my talks with King Hussein two weeks ago, he expressed the view that, even without a war, the size of the armed forces in the middle east was likely to bring about the fall of dynasties, including the Saudi dynasty. The Saudi holy places are now defended by American troops —Christian troops—who are not allowed to conduct Christian services in Saudi Arabia. It is not even possible to sell a bible to a British soldier in Saudi Arabia. So much for our defence of human rights and political liberty.
It has sometimes been said that I have cited the cases of Panama, Grenada, the Lebanon and Cyprus as arguments for not taking action. I cited them with a view to identifying the odious hypocrisy of those who now say that we should take action, having never said it in those other instances. Two million people died in the Vietnam war; as I have said, the Americans used chemical weapons to defoliate the forest, but anyone who criticised that war was denounced anti-American—never described as pro-United Nations.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: No: I have only a few moments.
I have listened to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) since the time of Suez. None of the matters that he has mentioned is covered by United Nations resolution. He talked of a permanent base, and of the need for the Arabs to be guided by foreign forces; others talk of a NATO out-of-area force. No UN resolution calls for that. People talk about control of the oil; there is no UN resolution entitling nations to go to war for that reason. "Topple Saddam," people say. Where is the UN resolution calling for him to be toppled, for Iraq to be demilitarised, for the war crimes tribunal to be brought into play? There are no such resolutions.
The difficulty in which the House finds itself is that we are told that we are here to defend the United Nations, while the speeches bear no relation to what the UN is about. In September, we were told that we were here to defend Saudi Arabia; now the position has changed again. The "nightmare scenario" of which people speak is not the nightmare of Saddam's remaining in Kuwait, but the nightmare of his withdrawing from Kuwait. Many military and political experts in Washington and London fear that, if he withdrew, their casus belli would go.
Those are some of the problems that face us. Another is the role of Israel. I well remember that in 1956—I clashed with the right hon. Member for Pavilion at the time—Israel, France and Britain colluded in an Israeli intervention that allowed the Government to claim that they were separating the forces when they had encouraged Israel to make that attack. I fear that Israel, misunderstanding its own long-term interest, may be tempted to trigger a conflict if it sees Saddam withdraw, and the American forces with him.
We must wind down the war machines and start to get the talks going. I pay warm tribute to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—I hope that I shall not embarrass him—for the courageous stand that he has taken, and the wisdom of his speech, with which I wholly concur. I think that, without consultation, Willy Brandt, he and I all said the same to Saddam
872
Hussein: "Free all the hostages; they represent no gain to you. Comply with all the United Nations resolutions." It is not in his interests to stand against the UN, and, if he wants resolution 242 to be implemented, he should bear that in mind.
We must think about guarantees of no attack. Of course, the disputed areas must be the subject of arbitration by the Arab states—not by American forces, because their role is not to be there. We want the withdrawal of all foreign bases and forces from the middle east, with no attempt to reimpose the old imperialism.
I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary's speech on 7 September. One of the most significant aspects was his analysis of the role of the UN. I believe in the UN: as I have said before, I felt—like every member of my generation—that it represented the alternative to war. My party supports it, too; I moved the amendment to clause 4 of our constitution, in 1960, to insert the commitment to the UN, which had never been there before. On 7 September, the Foreign Secretary said:
"Some people, particularly Opposition Members, talk of this development in terms of great aspirations and the brotherhood of man. I see it in more traditional, Tory terms … I see it in Tory terms as an increasingly effective concept of nations acting in sensible self interest for the preservation and extension of international order."—[Official Report, 7 September 1990; Vol. 177, c. 902.]
Those are two entirely different views of what is to follow the cold war.
Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I am afraid that the time limit prevents me from extending the courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman —[Interruption.]—unless I am given injury time.
Mr. Hurd: Whatever our view of the origin of the UN, the fact is that it has now authorised the use of force by member states in pursuit of its resolutions.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The UN has not authorised the use of force, because "force" would not have got through: it says "other means".
There is one interpretation of American action in the Gulf which is not a UN interpretation. I am referring to the reimposition of white, industrialised, western control over the rest of the world. Now that the cold war is over, the white nations can get together like Queen Victoria's grandsons—the Kaiser, the King and the Czar—and run the third world. We will not have it, and we will divide the House against the Government tonight.
7.16 pm
Mr. Matthew Carrington: My knowledge of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf goes back a number of years. I used to travel there extensively as a banker before I was elected to the House, and I still have a connection with a bank that is largely owned by Saudi Arabian interests. I therefore know a fair amount about the area.
Everyone—especially those who know that part of the world—has welcomed Iraq's decision to release the hostages, and must welcome their return even more. believe that, apart from being welcome on humanitarian grounds, that return is a clear signal of a shift in the Iraqi Government's attitude to the occupation of Kuwait. I believe that their new attitude makes war much less likely than it was last week—or, indeed, at any time since last August. There is now a real prospect that Iraq will leave Kuwait rather than face a war.

873
I believe that there are three reasons for that. One I have already mentioned: the return of the hostages, which, paradoxically, makes war more likely from Iraq's point of view, because it removes one disincentive for an American attack. The second is the pillage of Kuwait and the destruction of Kuwait City, which makes very little sense unless the intention is to leave Kuwait at some stage. If the Iraqis intended to remain, they would surely have some interest in maintaining a coastal city with some purpose.
The third reason is the certainty of military defeat. If there were a war—which I believe that the Iraqi forces would lose—we would end up not only with serious problems for Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, but with a serious defeat for the PLO and Yasser Arafat in particular. I do not believe that the Iraqi Government want either.
We are now seeing clear indications that the threat of war is receding, and that, if we keep up the military and diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi Government, that Government will start to seek a negotiated solution.
Iraq must not be rewarded for its aggression. That must be the basis of any future negotiations. There can be no solution to the problem which would leave Iraq, at least at this stage, in possession of the Rumaila oilfield or the Bubiyan and Warba islands. But we must consider what the situation will be like in the Gulf in due course.
Mr. Heath: Is my hon. Friend excluding paragraph 3 of resolution 660, which says that they must reconcile their differences?
Mr Carrington: No; and if my right hon. Friend listens to the remainder of my remarks he will appreciate why I made those comments. The differences must be reconciled because no one would benefit from a defeat of Iraq which left that country as a weakened regional power in the Gulf. The Gulf survives on a balance of power, and it is essential that that balance is maintained. If we set about destroying Iraq, and if Iraq and Kuwait do not negotiate their differences, the destruction of that balance of power would benefit nobody in the middle east.
In anticipation of finding a solution, we must consider what lay behind the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. We must accept that whatever the outcome—war or a negotiated solution—Iraq will still be a major military force in the middle east. There is no likelihood—I have never thought that there ever was a likelihood—that any military action would succeed in disarming Iraq. The United Nations resolutions clearly state that there is no intention of invading Iraq. Nor do I believe that there is a political or military capability to do so, certainly not on the part of the Americans.
The fundamental question that underlies everything that has gone on in the Gulf, and the reason why Saddam Hussein could get popular support for his action not only in his own country but in many others in the middle east, is the Palestinian problem. The Palestinian-Israeli problem is the cause, in many ways the cancer, of what is going on in the middle east. We shall not achieve peace in the area without a solution to the Palestinian problem, because even if we were to solve the current problem another would arise, and the balance of power would inevitably cause future threats of conflict, and those, in turn, would have to be tackled.
874
I do not think we can accept a linkage at this stage between the troubles in the Gulf and the Israeli-Palestinian problem, but we must start looking now for hopes of a solution to that problem, and perhaps the situation in the Gulf gives hope that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is available.
The PLO has been severely weakened. There is no question but that its support for Iraq, and Saddam Hussein personally, has made the PLO's position more difficult. Indeed, the PLO is showing increasing signs of losing control of the intifada in Palestine.
Israel would also be in a severely weakened position if we managed to avoid war. Israel has been critically weakened, if only because American support can no longer be taken for granted. I hope that America has had a considerable fright over what has happened in the middle east and will now look at its Israeli policy and say that there can be no lasting solution to the problems there unless Israel is prepared to negotiate with the Palestinians and to find a solution to the west bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.
I hope it is right to say that the noises coming out of Washington will be carried through into policy initiatives and will put real pressure on Israel. We have heard similar noises in the past, but we have not had real pressure put on Israel to negotiate.
Another situation makes the possibility of a solution greater still, and that is that the oil-rich states of the Gulf now have a vested interest in finding a just solution—one that they might be prepared to fund—to the Palestinian problem, meaning that the Palestinians would have to find a political solution with the Israelis. If we can find a financial solution, funded by the Arab oil states, perhaps we shall be some way towards finding a solution to that problem.
I do not pretend to have the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. It is a complex and bitter problem which goes back a long way. But it can be solved only by negotiation and discussion, hopefully under the auspices of the United Nations. I have some reservations about a middle east UN conference to solve the problem if only because conferences seem to lead to a lot of talk and not much decision taking.
Unless there is willingness on the part of the PLO and the Israelis to talk to each other and reach a solution, any conference would just drag on indefinitely and produce no lasting solution. There must be negotiations specifically between Israel and the PLO, and I hope that the fears and pressures that have emanated from the situation in the Gulf will exert enough world pressure on the Israelis and the PLO to get them to come to such negotiations.
We have been staring into the abyss in the Gulf, and we may yet go into it. I hope that we shall manage to avoid doing so. But there will be another crisis in the middle east unless we find a solution now to the Palestinian problem. I hope that the horror we have seen—the potential for military conflict in the Gulf staring us in the face—has frightened enough people into deciding that it is better to negotiate on problems rather than to fight over them.
7.26 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: This is the first time I have spoken in a foreign affairs debate and I do so with considerable diffidence as the issues are extremely grave and significant. My right hon. Friend the

875
Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a wise and crafty speech—I use those words as terms of honour, as there should be in politics—in which he described the situation clearly and said that he proposed to support the Government today because that would show support for the United Nations.
I followed my right hon. Friend's logic clearly, but I did not agree with him. To support the Government today would not be to support the United Nations because, for the reason which my right hon. Friend put forward and which I found compelling, the Government have throughout stated a lack of belief in the strategy of sanctions. In so doing, they have allowed themselves to become boxed in by the military timetable, to use words similar to those used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton.
Once we depart from the conviction that sanctions can work, we allow ourselves to become boxed in by the military timetable. That leaves us saying that either the situation must be resolved by mid to late March or it cannot be resolved at all. Once we cast doubt on whether the coalition which has been brought to bear on the situation can endure through another summer, we are boxing ourselves into a situation in which we say that either we must have a war before the next fighting season is over or we must contrive a peace which leaves the Iraqi war machine intact. That is precisely the corner in which the British Government, and to a lesser degree the United States Government, now find themselves, and it is an unhappy situation in which to be.
The first, central and specific obligation of the United Nations resolutions in these matters was to impose sanctions through a combination of physical containment backed by the use of armed force. That force has already been used, and rightly so, to enforce sanctions to that limited degree. The mistake of the United States and the British Government was always to talk down the possibility of that policy being successful. Talk of war crimes and reparations has increased Saddam Hussein's hold over his own people, whereas a policy of attrition would have separated him from his own people.
The creation of a United Nations middle east peace council three months ago would have provided an opportunity to hand the initiative over to moderate Arab and Israeli opinion in the region and give a wider, positive context for the demilitarisation of Iraq and the region. Now that same initiative, which should properly have been undertaken three months ago, looks like a face saver to leave the Iraqi war machine intact. It is a propaganda success for the Iraqis of the British and American Governments' contrivance.
By publicly casting doubt on whether a policy of siege —sanctions, containment, the back-up of armed force—could hold and the multinational containment force be kept together, the United States and Britain have forced themselves into an impasse. They must either succeed in getting the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait by the end of the fighting season in March, or suffer a defeat which would mean that the United Nations had failed. The self-imposed deadline for confrontration never had any legitimacy. It was never true that if we believed that patient, armed determination could work in the long term—if we believed in a policy of siege—we were therefore appeasers. On the contrary—once one departs from a siege policy, one puts one self, one's forces and the cause for which one stands in an impossible position.
876
We face a grave crisis. In my community I can see what the neglect of a siege policy means. I have had to witness the jobs of 600 heavy engineering workers on Tyneside being sacrificed because the Government did not believe in their own policy of sanctions and offered no protection to the industrial companies caught up in the consequences.
We never seem to recognise that Saddam Hussein's war machine has no economic base in his own country, other than that provided by the armament industries of the east and west. Siege can and will work. In undermining the belief in the possibility of siege, the Government have given themselves a false choice between a war which cannot succeed politically or economically, even if it succeeds militarily, and a peace which cannot be secured or sustained because no one will believe in it while the Iraqi war machine is intact. Those reasons for believing in a siege do not show any lack of support for the United Nations, the objectives of collective security or, in this instance, the United Nations' chosen first means to secure its objective. In not supporting the Government today, we shall not be underwriting a policy of appeasement or showing any lack of commitment to the cause taken up by the United Nations.
7.34 pm
Mr. John Browne: I declare an interest in the debate as a member of the Territorial Army.
A few years ago Mr. Gorbachev challenged the world to a new order—it was not a challenge of war, but of peace. He proposed to change the very nature of peace itself, from a peace of nuclear deterrence to a peace of detente—to allow for the institution of the international rule of law. Now, that new peace of detente faces its first great challenge by an international pirate, Saddam Hussein.
If Saddam Hussein is not brought to book, we must ask ourselves what other pirates will follow. If Saddam Hussein is not brought to book, what future will there be for the peace of detente, which will have effectively been killed at birth? If Saddam Hussein is not brought to book, what will remain of the threat he poses to the middle east, particularly as he is likely, within the next year or two, to gain a nuclear capability? In short, the international rule of law is now on trial.
In the interests of peace, the allies now in the Gulf simply must succeed, whether by sanctions or by the use of force. I believe that our Government are trying hard to find a peaceful solution. But the choice of whether it is a peaceful solution or one involving the use of force clearly lies in the hands of Saddam Hussein.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is not present now, suggested that we should have more discussion. He gave as an example an incident in the Cuban crisis of the 1960s involving John F. Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev. He made a powerful case. However, he ignored the essential differences between the Gulf crisis of the 1990s and the Cuban crisis of the 1960s, which is that Mr. Khrushchev was acting legally on the high seas. His action may have posed a great threat to the United States and world peace, but he was acting legally on the high seas. That is not so with President Hussein, who is acting as a pirate having used armed aggression. Saddam Hussein's human rights transgressions, which occur daily, are so dreadful that they

877
have to be seen to be believed. Therefore, I see little similarity between the Gulf crisis of the 1990s and the Cuban crisis of the 1960s.
We all know that war, if it happens, will be terrible, with many people killed and much suffering. But the pain and suffering would be less, probably considerably less, than the pain that would be suffered if we allowed such international piracy to be seen to succeed, especially with the spread of nuclear weapons to countries such as Iraq.
If there is a war, the balance of power in the middle east will surely be changed for ever. If there is a war, the battle may be quick, but its effects and implications for the allies are likely to be long term. For instance, if Iraq were neutralised, it would leave Israel as the only local super-power in the middle east. In such circumstances, we must prepare for a long-term commitment.
At the very moment when we are asking our young men and women to risk their lives, "Options for Change" and the peace dividend policy are actively pursued. I wonder what effect such talk has on the British Army of the Rhine, where people are being asked actively to study "Options for Change" at the same time as men and women are being posted from BAOR to the Gulf. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House this evening that "Options for Change" will be shelved, at least until the middle east crisis is clarified?
It amazes me that, while we call for volunteers from the Territorial Army and the reserves and deplete other units to reinforce those in the Gulf, we still have a cap on recruiting to the very regiments and corps being sent to the Gulf. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that recruit capping will be lifted, at least for those regiments and corps likely to be deployed in the Gulf?
Deployment to the Gulf has been a great success, particularly from a logistics angle, over extended lines of communications. Sincere congratulations are deserved for a job well done. However, I noticed a strange system of reinforcement for some of the line units. It is a system which worries me. We all accept that line units on peace-time establishment in BAOR must be considerably increased in number to put them on war establishment. BAOR is well used to the flexible deployment of combat teams from one regiment or battalion to another. But the first line of reinforcements to our units first deployed in the Gulf was effected by attracting experienced, highly trained and highly motivated men from combat teams and deploying them as individual soldiers into other regiments. That smacked of our moving towards a corps of infantry. It broke up trained and highly motivated teams, and most importantly it divided men from their officers. I cannot see that that was good.
As an example I cite the experience of the first battalion Grenadier guards, from which 186 men were taken and deployed to a fine regiment of the line—but devoid of their officers. Although trained for four years at vast expense and highly successful, they were not teams any more. I ask my right hon. Friend to assure the House that the concept of a corps of infantry is not part of Army thinking; and to assure the House that future reinforcements deployed to the Gulf will be met by the transfer of complete combat teams, not by the assignment of individual soldiers from trained battalions.
878
We cannot be certain that the Gulf conflict will be short, so we must plan prudently for long-term commitment. Has my right hon. Friend taken all necessary measures comprehensively to support our armed forces in the Gulf for an extended war in the middle east? Furthermore, will he take measures to ensure job security for members of the Territorial Army and the regular reserve who volunteer in response to his legitimate call?
In this respect I must mention the band of the Royal Greenjackets from my constituency. Its members have been deployed as stretcher bearers, a tough and risky task. I need not remind my right hon. Friend that the Royal Army Medical Corps has more Victoria crosses than any other regiment or corps in the British Army and that it has the only two British double Victoria crosses. That is testimony to the sort of job that these people may have to carry out if war breaks out in the middle east. It will be tough, and I am sure that the House wishes them God's protection.
If Saddam Hussein chooses the military option, we must not flinch. The Government have done an excellent job under difficult conditions, and we must stand firm behind them. If we are seen to waver, that will encourage war. I believe—I am sure that this view is held by my right hon. Friend—that peace alone is not enough. What we demand is peace with freedom.
7.42 pm
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) in detail except to ask him one question. Members of Opposition parties arguing for continuing with sanctions are asked by Conservative Members, "For how long?" The hon. Gentleman talked about a long-term war deployment in the Gulf, so we must ask him, "For how long?"
In a crisis it is vital that the political actors behave responsibly and rationally. We have had a fairly rational debate this evening, as we had in September. In taking practical decisions in the House and in government we need to adopt a thoughtful approach. Such an approach is more likely to be helpful than a fundamentalist response or a gut reaction. We need to keep cool heads and adopt a philosophical approach.
A crisis is also a matter of perception. Good diplomacy and effective action require an understanding of other people's perceptions without necessarily accepting them as valid. One perception that we need to correct is the tendency for Parliament to behave as though it were still in the 19th century—as though we were the main actors on the international scene. In fact, we are the fourth, fifth or even sixth players in the crisis. The first players are the peoples in the middle east: ordinary Kuwaiti and Iraqi citizens, who are dominated internally and externally; other dominated minorities in the region, including the Palestinians and the Kurds; the state of Israel; and the Arab states and the Arab nation.
The major centres of decision making in the crisis are in the United States—in the United Nations building in New York, in the White House and on Capitol hill in Washington, DC. Although the United Kingdom is not the main player, there seems far less of a wide-ranging debate here about the resolution of the Gulf crisis than there is in the United States. Congress has far more real democratic powers over the Executive than does this

879
Parliament, and there is a culture of openness in United States politics which even extends to the military. What we can do this evening is lend our rational voices, as democratic representatives, to the debate taking place in other centres of decision making, particularly in the United States.
No one in this House, least of all members of my party, will ever say anything in defence of the Iraqi regime. We are on record as being severely critical of the human rights record of that regime, particularly in Kurdistan, and when I—together with other hon. Members—raised the issue of Hallabjah not much fuss was made at the time about the chemical warfare and genocide against the Kurdish people by the Ba'athist regime. There must be a reversal of the unjustified occupation of Kuwait and of the aggression by Iraq. This debate is about the most effective way of ensuring such a reversal, coupled with a review of security in the entire region.
The issue is not whether it is legitimate to use all necessary means after 15 January; what is at issue is the most effective means of resolving the crisis. The arguments for taking military action used by the United States Administration are conflicting and confusing. The move from desert shield to desert sword by the United States is not merely rhetorical. The scale of over-deployment early on led to the build-up of capability beyond that necessary to resist further aggression into Saudi Arabia. That led to demands not merely for repelling the Iraqi forces from Kuwait but for destroying the military capability of the Iraqi regime. No United Nations resolution provides a basis for that.
Arguments for early military action include such statements as, "The international coalition of states against Hussein cannot be sustained." But surely an all-out war with a high toll of Arab civilian casualties would test the unity of the allies far more than patient pressure over a longer time. The argument for military action concentrates on the fact that the United States deployment, along with that of the United Kingdom and of other allies, will be at its peak early next year, but that is a cyclical argument arising from the initial deployment decisions. If the hot weather in the desert after February is the argument for striking early after 15 January, are the military experts really saying that a war can be successfully concluded before the long hot desert weather? What kind of civilian casualties would be inflicted in an air strike-led counter invasion at that time?
Another argument is that an early strike would prevent Iraq from becoming a nuclear power. It is not so long since spokespeople for the Bush Administration were saying that Iraq's nuclear capability posed no immediate danger. Surely diplomacy leading to a binding nuclear non-proliferation and chemical weapons treaty is the only way in which nuclear capability can be scaled down, as has happened in Europe.
How can the undertaking of military action be seen to bring about more effectively the resolution of the longstanding political conflicts in the region? Whatever view we may take of so-called linkages, those linkages exist in the perception of millions in the Arab nation. They are the linkages of hypocrisy, and it is only through understanding them that we can assist in resolving the long-term crisis in the area.
Long-term deployment of United States troops supported by the United Kingdom and a dwindling band of allies, trying to maintain an imposed political solution
880
against the increasing hostility of peoples in the region, cannot be regarded as an effective solution. There is no substitute for an internationally sponsored conference of all powers in the region—the middle east equivalent of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, dealing with strict controls of arms exports to the region and with verification for scaling down nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities. It could also deal with the creation of a nuclear-free zone throughout the middle east, with thoroughly negotiated international agreements for an elected Palestinian Government, with measures to ensure the security of the pre-1967 Israeli borders, and with the withdrawal of forces from the Lebanon.
Such an international conference, convened by the United Nations, is predicated upon Iraq's complying with the Security Council resolutions. An effective economic blockade together with patient diplomacy is much more likely to bring about longer-term peace and security in the region than the taking of precipitate military action which would turn the whole middle east into a huge Beirut.
There has to be a better way to combat aggression and maintain international law and order at the end of the 20th century. This approach to the crisis, at once practical and philosophical, may not commend itself to some Conservative Members or perhaps to Front-Bench speakers. As United Kingdom Members of Parliament, we do not have the equivalent of the war power resolution of the United States Congress. We cannot decide these issues in the House, but we can indicate a note of caution by voting. We do that not because we are appalled by the aggression of the Ba'athist regime or because we have no concern for human rights and democracy in Kuwait or anywhere else in the middle east, but because we believe that the balance of the argument favours a diplomatic resolution of the conflict.
There is a traditional doctrine of the conduct of states which provides a framework for the kind of value judgments that need to be taken in these situations. It is the theological and philosophical doctrine of a just war formulated by St. Augustine and refined by St. Thomas Aquinas. By such a doctrine any war, to be just, must be a last resort with full negotiations beforehand. Success must at least appear possible, the means used must be unavoidable for achieving the goal and those means must be used proportionately and quantitatively so that they do not cause more damage than they are supposed to prevent. They must be proportional to what is wanted. By those criteria I do not think that war in the Gulf can be effective diplomatically or politically or that it can be ultimately justified. For those reasons we shall vote against the Adjournment.
7.52 pm
Mr. John Marshall: It is with regret that I note in certain quarters of the House and elsewhere some weakening of the resolve to stand up to Saddam Hussein. Some people do not recognise that seeking to appease him is no guarantee of long-term peace in the middle east but a guarantee of further aggression by Saddam Hussein and other like-minded dictators.
In considering the long-term impact, we must recognise that this may well be the last opportunity to deal with Saddam Hussein without nuclear weapons. We are fortunate that in 1981 Israel sought to deactivate the nuclear reactor at Basra. Without that action by the

881
Israelis we would be facing a dictator with a nuclear capability. Those who are unwilling to face the possibility of war in the middle east are giving encouragement to Saddam Hussein and in three or four years when he has a nuclear capability he may engage in further aggression.
Some hon. Members seek to draw comparisons between the events of 1967 and those of August 1990. In 1967 the United Nations troops left Sinai because Colonel Nasser asked them to do so as a prelude to attacking Israel. In 1967 Jordan attacked Israel. At that time none of Israel's neighbours recognised her right to exist and none had signed a peace agreement with her. In that year Israel was reacting to aggression and the threat of aggression, but Kuwait is a quite different situation.
Kuwait was a small state living at peace with its neighbours. It was a small, inoffensive country and it was attacked by Saddam Hussein to satisfy his aggressive ambitions. He engaged in an act of naked and uncalled-for aggression against a small state. Some people on the international scene seek to establish a link between the situation in Kuwait and the position of the Palestinians. That is quite wrong because the Palestinians are among the chief victims of the invasion of Kuwait. Thousands of expatriate workers in Kuwait suddenly discovered that they had to leave the country. Their remittances, which were essential to the economies of many small towns on the west bank of Israel, disappeared.
I visited Bethlehem in September and the mayor told me that 300 Palestinians from Bethlehem were working in Kuwaiti banks. With the equalisation of the Kuwaiti and Iraqi dinar, their bank accounts were worthless and their remittances to Bethlehem disappeared overnight. Apart from those 300, about 5,000 Palestinians from Bethlehem were working in Kuwait and were sending remittances every month. All that stopped after the events of August 1990 because their remittances, which were important to many Palestinian families, evaporated in the wake of the attack upon Kuwait.
One of the other chief victims of the invasion was the peace process itself. The PLO's initial support of the invasion of Kuwait took the ground from under the feet of people in Israel who had been arguing that there should be discussions between the Government of Israel and the PLO. When I was in Israel, I met members of the peace movement who said that they had been completely gutted by the reaction of the PLO. One of them told me that he had spent five years arguing with his colleagues in Israel for negotiations with the PLO because the PLO had changed. However, its acceptance of events in Kuwait showed that, despite its claims, the PLO has not changed. That has made it much more difficult for people in Israel who seek the path of peace by negotiation.
World calls for a peace conference in the middle east as the price for Saddam Hussein leaving Kuwait will provide an over-large fig leaf to cover Saddam Hussein's withdrawal. Such a conference linked to withdrawal from Kuwait would be used to maximise Saddam Hussein's prestige among the Arabs. Is it right to do that, or is it right to maximise his inconvenience?
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait involved not only aggression against a peace-loving country but, as we hear night after night, it involves pillage, rape, the destruction of Kuwait City and quite unacceptable crimes against humanity. So
882
much damage has been caused that many years and billions of pounds will be needed to enable Kuwait to recover. It is not enough simply to ask Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. Those bloody hands which have destroyed buildings, families and lives must be punished and compensation must surely be paid for the damage that they have done.
If we fail to ensure that Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait humiliated and defeated, it is almost inevitable that elsewhere in the middle east thoughts will turn to the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against him. Saddam Hussein is an evil man and the soil of Iraq is drenched with the blood of 1 million people which he wantonly shed. No lives have been too precious and all have been affected by this man's evil. Apart from his actions in the Iran-Iraq war, he has indulged in a campaign of institutional barbarism in his own country. He has been willing to use chemical weapons against innocent Kurds and to engage in a campaign of intimidation against his political opponents. Nothing has been too mean or evil for him to contemplate, and the world must recognise that at some stage it will have to stand up to this evil monster, either now or later when he has nuclear weapons. In the 1930s the world could have stopped Hitler when he entered the Rhineland. In the 1990s it must stop Saddam Hussein because of his invasion of Kuwait.
7.58 pm
Mr. Bruce George: We have heard some significant speeches expressing a wide variety of views, particularly from the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Those outside the House should read my right hon. Friend's speech carefully—it was not a crafty speech, as one hon. Friend suggested, but one of great statesmanship.
I do not consider that I shall be compromised by voting with the Government today. I am a strong believer in the view that politics should cease at the water's edge. A majority of hon. Members have confirmed that our national interest is sustained by a substantial agreement. There will never be consensus in the House, in the country or in the international community, but we must seek substantial agreement on the sensible policy being pursued by the multinational force and the Governments whom it represents.
This is a timely debate. Like many hon. Members, I should prefer a peaceful resolution of the problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said earlier, there is an overwhelming preference for achieving that objective by means of sanctions. But sanctions themselves, unrelated to the threat of force, will achieve nothing. Moral pressure and diplomacy unrelated to the possible use of force will simply be mocked by a man as cynical, manipulative, vicious and tyrannical as Saddam Hussein. We should not eschew the military option or the threat of military force. Military force may not be used, but the threat of it, resolutely applied, will, I hope, be sufficient to bring that regime to heel.
We should not expect our forces to wait indefinitely for sanctions to bring Saddam Hussein down. The multinational force and the coalition would probably not be sustained, economically or politically, for the length of time demanded by some of my hon. Friends. We should speak to our adversaries, but that does not mean that

883
Saddam Hussein's arguments are necessarily legitimate. Some hon. Members have taken a rather too even-handed view in this debate, as though the man had some justification for his attitude and actions. If negotiation means reaching a point equidistant between two extreme views, I would oppose it. I also oppose the argument that we should throw him something to allow him to save face. That would be the wrong approach.
We have heard today arguments about the concept of a just war. Should all else fail and war break out, military action would not only have been underpinned by the United Nations, which is critical, but it would be a just war. It would not be a war to prop up the oil companies and to maximise their profits. It would not be a war representing some sort of collective blood lust on the part of those prepared to resort to it. It would not be to make the middle east safe for autocracy Gulf-style. It would not be a war to impose western imperialism.
In the past couple of hours we have heard a great deal of nonsense about Kaiser Bill, the re-establishment of white rule and the return to imperialism. The multinational force is not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) implied, some sort of Anglo-Saxon conspiracy—it is infinitely more broad-based than that rather facile analysis would lead us to believe. Most of those hon. Members who intend to vote with the Government today have been accused of odious hypocrisy, and that is grossly unfair.
The aims of western and Muslim Governments are well known. It is not United Nations policy, but I firmly believe that, whether one uses the word compensation or the more controversial word reparation, that must be pursued, as well as the neutralisation, by military means or otherwise, of Saddam Hussein's offensive and war-making capability. That must be in conjunction with a peace conference to resolve the middle east crisis, and to strengthen the United Nations and international law. It is critical that every effort should be made to prevent the spread of the arms trade, which has been the source of so many problems.
We must keep up military pressure on Iraq. We must sustain the military build-up to give a signal to Saddam Hussein that, militarily as well as politically, his options are running out. We must work hard to prevent the fragmentation of the multinational coalition, and we must work hard to sustain international public opinion and the legitimacy of the United Nations.
Saddam Hussein is clearly successfully manipulating international opinion, using hostages first as a human shield, then releasing them in droplets and, finally, completely. He does not want compromise. He is stalling. He is hoping that the international coalition against him will tire, will be undermined by internal dissent and that the generals and the legions will go home, leaving him with his illegal profits.
Much has happened since our debate a few months ago. Both sets of forces are better prepared, but now there is a balance between them. Any thought of military action before now would have been folly beyond belief. The multinational force and commitment to it is holding, despite pressures from outside and inside. The greatest difference of all is United Nations resolution 673 of 29 November. I have spoken of Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the hostages and how sanctions are being applied with some effect.
If it ever comes to a conflict—I hope to God that it does not—I hope that we shall be successful. If we are not, if
884
Saddam Hussein gains a military victory, should there be a military stalemate or a peaceful solution allowing him to retain his access to the sea, keep his armed forces intact, control Kuwait's oilfields, keep unchanged his country's military structure, expand his nuclear capability, develop his conventional weapons and further build up his conventional forces, that will be a disaster for us.
If Saddam Hussein wins, there will be a gaping international power vacuum. The United States will be completely discredited and will join the Soviet Union as an ex-superpower. It will be a green light to any predatory nation with a spurious territorial claim on a neighbour to settle it by invasion. If he is successful, the United Nations will be fatally weakened and the post cold war security order that has been so patiently set up will be destroyed.
Let us imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussein were successful. Who then in the middle east would stand up to him? It is unlikely that a coalition of Arab states would do so. He would be master of the region. He would be able to control the price of oil. I do not want the world economy to be determined in Baghdad. I do not want the price of oil and its rate of extraction and distribution to be decided by Saddam Hussein. It is not remotely immoral to stand up to Hussein because one is worried about the future of one's national economy and the world economy. Therefore, if war does take place, it will be justifiable. We are all aware of the disastrous consequences of war, but we should not forget the potential disastrous consequences of opting out.
There are many precedents for compensation or reparation. It has been suggested that it would cost more than $60 billion to rebuild Kuwait. How will one replace the destroyed infrastructure or compensate for the loss of life and misery that Saddam Hussein has perpetrated?
Finally, we should be worried about Saddam Hussein's nuclear strike potential. It might be apocalyptic to say that he would have some form of primitive device next week or next month, but to argue that it would take a decade or more would be deliberately to evade the facts. It is obvious that Iraq was planning to build three super guns with the help of Gerald Bull's design. It is obvious that Saddam Hussein has ballistic missiles, largely based on the SCUD —the A1 Hussein with a range of 600 km, the A1 Abbas with a range of 900 km, the Tammouz, with a satellite launch vehicle, with a possible range of 2,000 km, and the A1 Abbad, also with a range of 2,000 km. When those are deployed in significant numbers, the Iraqis have a warhead capability which can take chemical and biological weapons. In a few years they will have nuclear warheads, and then we shall have to hold on to our hats. It is not merely alarmist to say that if war is inevitable it is better earlier than later. I do not want war—I want a peaceful solution.
History has frequently been cited in the arguments both for and against war. Hoare-Laval and Suez have been mentioned today and even the Cuba crisis was cited by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). However, the essence of the Cuba decision was that Khrushchev was faced down by Kennedy—he realised that Kennedy desperately meant it, and so withdrew. The lesson to be learnt is not that suggested by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, but that when western nations are seen to be desperately serious, that is when an adversary will back down.
I shall feel no guilt whatever about voting in the same Lobby as the Government today because in many ways we

885
are on the same side. I hope very much that the national and international consensus will be sustained, and that diplomacy, sanctions and the threat of military force will be sufficient to bring about the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein's forces. If after three, six or nine months it is clear that sanctions have failed, the United Nations will have underpinned action which will be a last resort, but which may ultimately be necessary.
8.10 pm
Sir John Stokes: It is always a great pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) speak about military matters, and I agree with much of what he said. Before I turn to the details of the Gulf problem, I want to let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs know how much I, as a member of the WEU's defence committee, and my colleagues, I am sure, were delighted at his speech yesterday when he pointed the way to a much more important role for the WEU not only in Europe but outside it.
I was nostalgically interested in the speeches of a number of old colleagues this afternoon. We heard first from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), whose views are wrong, in my opinion—but his was a powerful speech. I have known him for more than 50 years. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spoke about the United Nations. I remember his speeches about the UN at the start of, during, and towards the end of the Falklands war —and, oh dear, what a dying fall they had. We heard also from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), with whose views I also do not agree. But what fine fellows they all are, and were.
The entire Gulf situation has been transformed recently by President Bush's offer to hold talks with the Iraqis. I doubt whether that will prove to be a wise move, and I fear that it is the result of pressures from the American peace movement. We have seen what powerful emotions can be stirred up by the pictures of hostages and their families on our television screens night after night. Those scenes only prove what a menace television can be to the true interests of the nation. The visits by senior politicians to Saddam were a grievous mistake because they only gave him added kudos. Now he realises that there is no more political capital to be made by continuing to hold hostages.
It is difficult to see what there will be to talk about, as Iraq appears to have no intention of withdrawing from Kuwait and making appropriate compensation for the appalling wrong and damage that it has done. I believe that Mr. Bush has felt compelled to offer talks with Saddam because of the growing peace movement in Congress and among the American public, yet if Saddam Hussein still refuses to withdraw, what can Mr. Bush do? He will be in a difficult position if Congress and the American people are unwilling for him to go to war. He must also miss the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who added so much backbone to the efforts of the United Nations and of Britain.
Saddam will try to prolong talks as long as possible, and will bring in the Palestinians if he can. We must not allow him to get off the hook for that reason, although I
886
accept that the Palestinian problem must be solved as soon as possible after Saddam has been put in his place. If the United States fails to secure Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, Mr. Bush will have allowed aggression to go unpunished, and will also have fatally damaged his personal standing and the position of the United States as a great power. The fact that Iraq may soon have nuclear weapons adds to the awfulness of the prospect.
Iraq is a difficult terrain in which to fight. Many years ago I spent nearly a year in that country as a soldier, and I can tell the House that it is difficult to read a map there, let alone to fight. The climate is most disagreeable in summer and in winter. However, if Saddam does not withdraw, I believe, with the greatest reluctance, that war will become inevitable—awful though that thought may be.
We have some difficulties with our own allies that certainly worry me. Syrian troops are not only deployed alongside British troops in Saudi Arabia but are crawling all over Lebanon and taking over the Christian enclaves. In a sense, the Christians have been thrown to the Syrian wolves, which shows the sadness of realpolitik in foreign affairs.
Can we allow aggression to succeed? I speak as someone who was willing and able to fight at the time of Munich. If appeasement wins, it will be a fearful blow to the United States, Britain, and our allies, and will deal a crushing blow to the United Nations and the Security Council—which for the first time in 40 years, with our alliance with the Soviet Union, has shown itself to be strong and united. Those are the difficult problems which confront the peace party and which people in this country, including some of our clergy, must also be brave enough to face. Therefore, I hope, albeit reluctantly, that our allies will strike and that their campaign will be short, sharp and successful—and as soon as possible after 15 January.
If we do not win this struggle, it will make the Munich agreement seem almost harmless by comparison. Aggression will have paid off, and the future of the world will be jeopardised, as will our new understanding with the Soviets. Saddam will become the strongest person and a hero in the middle east, and Israel—which has been mercifully quiet so far—will probably feel compelled to strike at him. The consequences of that happening are too awful to contemplate both for the middle east and the Arab nations, as well as for ourselves, the United States, and our allies. I repeat that, although I know how horrible war can be, if we cannot bring Saddam down by the middle of January, it will be the only solution to this appalling problem.
8.18 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Unlike the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), I am thankful that there is televising of war situations, because by instantly knowing what is happening, the public can have at least some, albeit indirect and remote, say in what is done in their name.
I have sat on these Benches for more than 28 years, since the time of the foreign affairs debate that was opened by the late Hugh Gaitskell. I must tell my parliamentary colleagues that I have never been so concerned about anything as I am about what we are debating tonight. Saddam Hussein is in a position to bring down the temple with him. He may be starved of oil and short of munitions,

887
but he has deep-mined some 300 Kuwait oil wells and is now able to detonate them. The truth is that none of us —scientists, politicians or mining engineers—has any clear idea what may happen when oil wells are deliberately detonated. It is outwith human experience. There is every reason to believe that the emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide will be on a scale that the earth has never seen before. According to the King of Jordan, a radius of about 750 km could be affected. That would be an ecological catastrophe.
Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether our reaction is in proportion, whatever the outrage. If any hon. Member thinks that I am being fanciful, he should consider these words in the official Government newspaper, Al Jumhouriya, on 8 November. It said that Iraq threatened to turn the Arabian peninsula into ashes, and the Saudi oilfields into a sea of fire if attacked.
"The mother of all battles is nearer today."
Only Medina and Mecca will be spared.
"If the fire of aggression is unleashed against Iraq, flames will burn everything in every direction."
The newspaper said that sets of sealed orders existed in case of war.
Is that an idle threat? I fear that it is not. That fact may be uncomfortable, awkward and horrific, but nevertheless that is what we are facing. Any battle will be enormously difficult.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge said that he had experience in a military capacity in Iraq. I am not claiming any great military experience, other than 21 months with the Desert Rats—with the gerbil on my shoulder sleeve, because it was the 7th armoured brigade. Anyone with remote knowledge of tanks, as tank crew, realises how difficult a battle will be in an oilfield. Among other things, have Ministers thought what will happen when tanks have to operate in the vicinity of high-pressure oil pipes? That is a real problem—as is sand.
Last Tuesday, with about 60 or 70 of my parliamentary colleagues—mostly members of the Government party—I attended a lecture given in Committee Room 14 by General Colin Powell. I shall reproduce the question that I asked and General Powell's answer. I told General Powell that, as a member of the minority who did not believe that any successful military victory was to be had, I did not doubt his sincerity in preferring peace to war. I asked him about the figures, with which I have now bored the House on five occasions, from King Hussein's speech about carbon dioxide. That afternoon reference had been made by our Defence Minister to a short, sharp and quick war. I asked General Powell whether he contemplated the use of nuclear weapons. In the hearing of many hon. Members—I do not think I am being inaccurate—General Powell said that he would take my second question first and that he did not contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, but he could not rule out any advice that he might offer to the President of the United States. I think that it would be fair to say that every parliamentary colleague in that room realised that if things were not going right for the Americans and the allied forces, there would be a possibility of nuclear weapons being used. That is horrific. If nuclear weapons were used by white westerners against Arabs, no hon. Member can fail easily to imagine what the reaction in the Arab world would be, even among those who hate Saddam Hussein.
General Powell then turned to my first question. He seemed to accept the King of Jordan's figures, and added
888
that I had better understand that trenches had been dug —incidentally, that has been confirmed by satellites—and that oil is pumped into the trenches, which means that there could be canals of fire. General Powell also said that it would be difficult for his tanks to go through canals of fire. As former national service tank crew, I can only echo that view. Those are the sort of problems that we are up against.
One can say all sorts of things about Saddam Hussein, but I was interested by Sir Brian Urquhart's Montague Burton lecture in Edinburgh. He said that we might find it hard to take the idea of Saddam Hussein as the self-styled champion of the underprivileged, but that that view had a lot of takers. That is an uncomfortable fact, but we have to live with it.
I promise to be brief, and I shall now address my remarks to my own Front-Bench spokesmen—something that I have hardly ever done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke about the United Nations. In many circumstances I would be bound to agree with him. However, I have a severe streak of doubt. I had the privilege to be chosen by Mr. Speaker to lead the parliamentary delegation to Zaire two weeks ago. We met the Foreign Minister of Zaire. He was full of the fact that earlier in the week he had had a long session with James Baker—Zaire happens to be a member of the Security Council. We asked him why Zaire had lined up with the Americans. He was quite clear that it had nothing whatever to do with rights and wrongs in the middle east. For perfectly understandable civil rights reasons, the Americans had decided that they would not give aid to the hard-pressed Government of President Mobutu, but because Zaire had obliged the Americans in the United Nations, lo and behold, United States aid to Zaire would flow once more.
I suspect that the same may be true of the Ivory Coast and other countries. I was not satisfied with the answer that I was given earlier by the Foreign Secretary in regard to Yemen. The Yemeni people are nearest to the crisis and they have something to lose, but they voted against. It was no good the Foreign Secretary asking me whether I did not know that Cuba is some way from Zaire, as that was no answer. The issue concerns Yemen.
I must also ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton about the Labour party conference. For the first time I was sitting in the rows of seats for constituency delegates. I remember the occasion well. My colleagues may correct me if I am wrong, but in the delegate section of the conference it was the general impression that we were concerned about sending air force and naval units for the protection of Saudi Arabia. We were not conscious that we were about attacking Iraq and liberating Kuwait. I suspect that the party goalposts have been changed. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton thinks that I am wrong, doubtless I shall be told, but I do not think that I am.
Angus McGrouther, professor of plastic surgery, who helped to treat soldiers in the Iran-Iraq war, said:
"Casualties likely to arise from a war in the Gulf would rapidly exhaust the facilities available in military hospitals. Even health service facilities to treat burns and major injuries would be fully occupied within days or weeks. Hard choices will need to be made about the priority of different patients."
I wonder whether in the reply to the debate we can be told about the hospitals and treatment.

889
I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He is so right. There is confusion between dialogue and appeasement and we must embark upon dialogue.
8.30 pm
Sir Alan Glyn: I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but tonight I do. Any war would be ghastly and horrible. Also, I was fortunate enough to listen to General Powell. The House should be indebted to him for giving us such a marvellous dissertation.
The debate serves two purposes. First, it brings home to the British people what a dangerous situation the nation is facing. In fact, I think that it is probably more dangerous than 1939 because the conflict in 1939 was on our doorstep, but this one is a long way away and is not seen as being as immediately dangerous to them. Secondly, the speeches in tonight's debate serve as a signal to Saddam Hussein that we intend to go forward with our allies and bring his aggression to an end. Of course, we all hope that it will be a peaceful conclusion.
The weapons that may be used in the conflict are far worse than those used in the second world war, with the possible exception of those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The weapons are horrific and I am certain that there will be many casualties in a war such as this. The debate could be entitled, "The Rape of Kuwait". Like most rapes, it cannot be repaired, but compensation can be exacted from those responsible—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Will the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) continue with his comments?
Sir Alan Glyn: We are all pleased to see that the hostages have been released, but one wonders why they were liberated. Was it to gain time, or was it for some other reason? We do not know. However, I am sure that the House is glad that they have been brought home safely.
It is important that we adhere to the United Nations resolutions. We have to see this conflict through. We have one of the most powerful forces that has ever been raised in a limited area and it has the most devastating weapons. One only hopes that they will not have to be used. The hon. Member for Linlithgow talked about what General Powell said, but we all hope that it will not come to that.
We do not know—my hon. Friend the Minister may know—the comparative strength of the two sides in the military terrain and the weapons that Saddam Hussein has in his arsenal. There are many ways of finding out approximately but when it comes to war it is difficult to estimate the balance. All wars are horrible. Mention has been made of the weapons used in Vietnam. I fought in Vietnam, and it was not very pleasant. However, it was nothing like what I imagine a war in the Gulf would be like.
There must be no possibility of our giving in to the dictator. Although we hope that there will be a peaceful solution, whatever hon. Members think, we have the authority to use whatever means we need to stop Hussein. That is useful. I hope that the means that we have discovered—this international force—can be developed and used not only in Kuwait but anywhere else in the
890
world where it may be necessary. I hope that in any conflict involving factors of this nature it may be used. Britain, together with the Americans and our other allies, could form a force, perhaps with NATO, that could be used as a world peace force. That would be a great step forward. Perhaps the war can bring with it some lessons of international co-operation and working together for the sake of peace.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, we must not allow Saddam Hussein to get away with or gain anything. The damage that he has inflicted and the casualties that he has caused must be paid for. I see no reason why he should not be forced to pay for them. This is not because of a greed for oil or the profits made by oil companies. However, hon. Members on both sides have said that oil is essential in this century whether it be for the peasant in India, the factory in Leeds or elsewhere. We must not allow Hussein to become a sort of king of the middle east able, as one hon. Member said, to dictate the price of oil.
Whatever the conflict brings, we have to look at the aftermath and what is to be done. Obviously the problems in Israel and Jordan have to be solved and we have to encourage the Arabs to work out a peaceful solution to the problems in the middle east after we have accomplished our task. I hope that the international armed forces will be able to maintain their determination. However, armies do not like sitting doing nothing. One danger is that Saddam Hussein may realise that our armed forces are perhaps getting bored. I hope that we shall be able to find a peaceful solution rather than having to go to war.
Sir Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The unfortunate interruption just now is bad enough in itself. However, when five hon. Members applaud such action and, thereby, encourage it, one can envisage the headlines tomorrow morning.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The headlines are made larger by points of order of that nature.
8.38 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: There is no doubt that my position is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and as expressed in the early-day motion. I am opposed to a war in the Gulf and I am specifically deeply disturbed at the danger that we face as we give a blank cheque to an American-led assault some time after 15 January. I shall be voting against the Adjournment because I do not want in any way, by silence, omission or vote, to give any encouragement to the Government to think that they can continue propping up American policy and carrying on a long tradition of being dragged along in the wake of the United States like some poodle yapping its chorus of support for American interests round the globe.
I profoundly disagree with those Members who, however sincerely they hold the view, say that the crisis is not about oil. From the opinion polls in Britain and in America, there is not the slightest doubt that the overwhelming majority of people realise that this is about oil, wealth and power. It is not a defence of a small country from some nasty, oppressive neighbour. Over the past 40 years, we have seen endless examples of aggression and of crossing borders which, in some instances, have been supported by the United States. In some instances, the United States has acted with our complicity, as was the

891
case with Suez. It ill behoves the United States now to adopt the mantle of an international judge dispensing peace and brotherly love; it is a cover for its own financial interests.
Early in the evolution of the conflict, I was especially struck by a statement from the Iranian news agency, which is not a body with which I normally find myself in agreement. The agency said that Frankenstein's monster had turned on his creator. The Iranians were reminding us that Saddam Hussein, his Government and his state have been a creature of western interests for a long time. Evidence has been provided by King Hussein of Jordan that when Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party came to power in Iraq it had the support of the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA gave Saddam Hussein death lists of activists, trade unionists and members of the communist party because it saw Saddam Hussein as an instrument through which to destroy the Iraqi communist party—which he did with total ruthlessness.
Throughout the war between Iraq and Iran there was wholehearted support by the United States—sometimes covert and sometimes not so covert—for Iraqi aggression against Iran. When Iraq launched an unprovoked assault against Iran, where was the condemnation by the United Nations? The United Nations was prevented from acting by America's veto. America assisted both through the supply of arms and through the passing to the Government of Iraq of spy satellite photographs showing the disposition of Iranian forces.
I can imagine what Saddam Hussein felt when he decided to invade Kuwait. He must have thought, "They did not object when I did it to Iran, so why should they object when I do it to Kuwait?" That is the logic. In one sense, Saddam Hussein is a creature of the west. He has paid his dues to the west and he has carried out the interests of the west in attacking Iran when we saw Iran as the great danger. Now he has turned on his creator.
Even with Saddam Hussein's more recent abomination —the assaults on his own Kurdish minority, when his gas weapons killed them by the thousands—the United States threatened to use its veto in the United Nations to prevent it from condemning Iraq. One of the western satellites and puppets of the imperial interests of the United States is embarrassing its creator, turning on its creator and getting too big for its boots. We can only understand the debate about what has been happening over the past five months when we see matters in that international perspective.
I was amazed today. I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and, for the first time in my life, I agreed with every sentence that he uttered. I wished that he had gone one sentence further and said that the logic of his position would lead him to vote against the Adjournment, and that he would join us in the Lobby tonight. However, he made a fine speech which pointed out the nonsense and the dangers that we now face.
My right hon. Friend reminded the House that sanctions would need a year to work. He reminded us that the sanctions would destroy 43 per cent. of the gross national product of Iraq, which would be a massive assault. Such an impact would be likely to lead Saddam Husseim to withdraw. Yet we are told by America, which is exerting pressure at the United Nations, that it wants clearance for an attack on Iraq and that it wants to be able to move. Why is that? It is because there is an insufficient
892
domestic base of support for George Bush's policies. American public opinion does not support the prospect of war and the support is eroding.
We are told by independent commentators that President Bush could not get a vote for war through his House of Representatives. It is nice to think that the House of Representatives would at least be allowed a vote on whether to go to war. I sometimes think that this House has one or two things to learn from the procedures in other Parliaments.
We are also told that the Americans must move because sanctions are not working quickly enough. Why is that? The reason is that American corporations are leading the sanctions-busting. We are told by the President of the United States that we may have to lose the lives of young people in our armed forces who are stationed in the middle east because the Americans cannot impose the discipline of sanctions on their own multinational corporations. Why should young people from this country be butchered in a war that is the consequence of the failure of the Americans to carry the support for sanctions of their own business community? We are supporting sanctions. Why cannot President Bush get his own large, multinational corporations to ensure that the sanctions work? It is an obscenity that, because corporate America will not co-operate, we are now under accelerating pressure for a military solution in the Gulf. That is why there has been pressure on the United Nations.
What a weasel-worded way of proceeding there has been. The Americans have not had the courage to put down a motion saying, "We want authorisation for a military strike against Iraq." They have used the term "other means" so that they can get the support of Gorbachev and of others. While the Government here can say, "This does open the way for the use of a military strike", Gorbachev can say, "It means that the Americans will do everything but launch a military strike." Let us have some honesty about the proposal.
We know full well that if America had proposed a resolution using the words "military force", it would have been vetoed. The weaselly evasion has dominated much of the debate, with people saying one thing while meaning another. That is why I regret the fact that we shall not have a specific and clear vote tonight. Why do not the Government have the courage to table a motion calling for support for an armed strike after 15 January? The reason is that they do not want to fracture the fragile alliance. They want to minimise opposition and they want to allow hon. Members to say only, "I am opposed to that."
I should like to think that, when the Secretary of Stale for Defence speaks tonight, he will have the honesty and integrity to say that if the House votes for the Adjournment, when he is talking about it in public he will say, "We won the backing of the House of Commons for military action after 15 January." If he is not prepared to say that on the Floor of the House, he has no right to say it outside the House either nationally or at international conferences. We will press him on that point.
Many Members who are undecided about how to vote tonight want to know how the Government will interpret their vote. Let us hear how the Government will interpret the vote before hon. Members go into the Lobby. I am prepared to give way now to the Secretary of State for Defence if his integrity pressures him to feel that he wants to intervene to make the Government's position clear.

893
What is the real reason for war? It is not to uphold the law or to defeat aggression, and it is certainly not to build a new world order. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, war will be about re-establishing the old imperial order of the 19th century. With the weakened position of the Soviet Union, the imperial powers seek to regain some of the ground that they have lost. If any of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench doubt that —and I was much moved by the oratory and charm of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman}—I must point out that The Wall Street Journal carries more influence in the White House than Labour Members do when they speak in the House. My right hon. Friend should read The Wall Street Journal, which is the paper of capitalism. It is honest about its aim. It does not talk about defending poor Kuwait or about defeating Iraqi aggression, but about re-establishing western control over vital international resources.
We are told now that we shall prop up America in this campaign. We can look back over decades of aggression led by America and over decades of the Americans breaking international law. We think of the illegal invasion of Cuba in 1961, of the illegal complicity in the assassination of President Lumumba in the Congo, which is now Zaire, and of the invasion of the Dominican Republic to overthrow a democratically elected Government who were barely social democratic, but who were perceived as a threat by the United States. I refer also to the illegal bombing of Cambodia, the assassination of 6,000 people in South Vietnam by the CIA because they were believed to be agents of North Vietnam, the invasion of Grenada, and the arming of Israel in 1982—a massive increase in American armaments to prepare Israel for its illegal invasion of Lebanon. There was no condemnation of that. When we saw America condemned by the world court, where was its defence of the rule of international law? When the world court ruled against it for the illegal mining of the harbours of Nicaragua, it refused to comply with the judgment. Those people are not fit to determine how the world is organised.
There is no denying that Saddam Hussein is a vile, despicable and brutal leader, and I look forward to his overthrow by his own people. However, in terms of global politics he is the local mugger on the block. One does not bring in the local mafia to deal with the mugger on the block. America's record over the decades is infinitely worse. It is a record of sustained oppression. My vote tonight will demonstrate that the people who sent me here did not intend that I should simply play the role that has been part of British politics in the past 40 years—tagging along with America.
It is striking that the nations that have built successful and dynamic economies have held back from the conflict. The two leading protagonists, America and Britain, think that they can easily divert the attention of their peoples from their mismanagement of their economies to foreign adventures. That will not work. It will not be the quick surgical strike that people are talking about. It is the gravest threat that the world has faced since the Vietnam war was at its height.
I urge all hon. Members to make their commitment clear. They cannot go into the Aye Lobby and argue that
894
it was a vote for peace in the Gulf. It is a vote to carry on the policy of subordinating Britain and its interests to the United States of America, and it is time we said no.
8.51 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: I promised my colleagues that I would not take too much time because one or two other hon. Members want to speak.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that we should be debating another motion because our position at the end of this debate will be farcical. The Government opened the debate by moving,
"That this House do now adjourn."
When the Division is called, the Government will vote against their own motion. If they vote for the Adjournment of the House, the rest of tonight's business will fall. People outside simply do not understand the procedures that the House of Commons adopts on such great occasions. It would have been far better to debate a motion which could have been the subject of an amendment. We would then have known clearly where we stood.
I voted in the Aye Lobby in the September recall. I shall explain what I explained to my constituency Labour party on the Thursday night following that vote. I supported the actions that had been taken until that time. I made it clear that, if the position changed, I reserved my right to change my view. The position has changed. It has moved on dramatically, and we are now on the brink of war.
Whatever else may be said, I am the first to concede that, in a moderate speech today, the Foreign Secretary made it abundantly clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the Government considered that they had a mandate to take the country to war without further reference to the House of Commons. That is untenable and I will not support it, and I urge my colleagues not to support it. We should not place the Labour party in such a position.
The Secretary of State for Defence will no doubt talk about the need to preserve the coalition. The coalition has a far better chance of survival through the operation of sanctions than it will have if we go to war. What is the composition of forces presently in the Gulf? They are from Syria, Egypt—even some mujaheddin—Britain, France and America. No one can tell me that the Syrian forces are going to go to war. The Egyptians will not go to war. Francois Mitterrand is already making it clear that there are serious doubts whether the 5,000 French troops in the Gulf will be committed to conflict. The coalition will not survive; it will flounder on war alone. The Secretary of State for Defence had better understand that the best chance of survival for the coalition is the imposition and preservation of sanctions, not war.
In an earlier intervention I asked whether there are contingency plans in the Ministry of Defence for the reintroduction of conscription. No one has given thought to the continuing troop commitment in the Gulf even after the conflict is over. We have seen the continuing commitment that we need in the Falklands. We have commitments in Ireland. We will continue with commitments in the Gulf states after the conflict is over. No one has given any thought to that question. We have had no comment and no analysis of the required continuing commitment.

895
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said that he was worried about being accused of hypocrisy for voting with the Government. I do not tag any of my colleagues with the label of hypocrisy. I give them the credit of knowing exactly what they are doing, just as I shall know exactly what I am doing when I go into the Aye Lobby tonight.
I finish with the same comment as I made to the parliamentary Labour party. An allegation about appeasement has been thrown about left, right and centre. That charge is laid by those who make the fundamental blunder of believing that the opposite of war is appeasement. The opposite of war is not appeasement; it is peace. The Labour party, of all parties, should give peace a chance.
8.57 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: The question is not whether we should allow Saddam Hussein to get away with it. It is not whether anyone approves the invasion of Kuwait, or whether we support the United Nations, or whether armed force should ever be used to enforce United Nations resolutions. The question is whether the time has now come—or will come in January —for armed force to be used to enforce United Nations resolutions about Kuwait.
It was clear from the speech of the Foreign Secretary that, in his opinion, the time for war is close. He told us that war should be a last resort, that United Nations resolution 678 is not a call to arms, and that the Government are working for a peaceful outcome. He also told us that sanctions are having an effect, but then he went on to tell us why he thought war was justified. He gave us four reasons.
The first is that Kuwait is being dismantled piece by piece. The House will remember the American officer who explained the destruction of a village in Vietnam by saying that the American army destroyed it in order to save it from the communists.
Secondly, the Foreign Secretary told us that murder, torture and brutality are commonplace in Kuwait. Of course they are—they are commonplace in Iraq and in many other countries, especially in the middle east—but let us not pretend that we are going to war in defence of human rights.
Thirdly, the Foreign Secretary told us that Iraq is improving its defences. Of course it is—what else would we expect? That might have been an argument for going to war last August or next August after sanctions have affected the Iraqis' ability to defend themselves, but it is the worst possible argument for going to war in December or January when their defences are at their best.
Fourthly, the Foreign Secretary told us that it has taken a long time to establish collective security, that collective security has a subscription, and that the subscription is collective action. We all agree with that, but economic sanctions are collective action and that is a subscription to collective security.
The point is that economic sanctions take time. It was clear from the Foreign Secretary's speech that the Government are not willing to allow enough time for sanctions to take effect. That is why when I vote tonight I shall be voting not against the United Nations but against the Government and their rush to war.
9 pm
Mr. Roger King: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has now left the Chamber. I have yet to hear a more anti-American speech or a worse diatribe against one of our oldest allies. The hon. Gentleman uttered not one word about the plight of Kuwait and the Kuwaitis. That country has been invaded by Iraq and dominated by it and its population is tyrannised by the forces of Iraqi occupation. If our history as a nation is anything to go by, we should understand what that can lead to if it is not firmly addressed.
The United States and this country have taken an admirable lead in the United Nations to garner world-wide support for the actions that have been taken, first, in introducing sanctions and, secondly, to back that up with military forces which are designed, initially and, I hope, eventually, to persuade Saddam Hussein that he must withdraw from Kuwait without reservation, or face the consequences—consequences that none of us want to face. War is a dirty and distressing business and those who took part in the second world war and other wars since will be fully aware of the death and destruction caused by it. We do not know, because we have not used them, what destructive capacity our sophisticated weaponry now has and we do not appreciate what that will cost in lives.
It is all very well to say that we can leave sanctions indefinitely, and that at some stage in the future, perhaps, Saddam Hussein will withdraw because he has been obliged to do so by the stranglehold exerted on his country by the world. Can Kuwait and its population wait that long? If we were in a similar situation, would we have wanted that? In the second world war, when the forces of Nazi Germany surrounded us, would we willingly have allowed the United States to say that it would wait and see how long the United Kingdom could hold out in the hope that something would be resolved? Instead, it came to our rescue with military aid and then with its army, air force and navy and, together, the great allied forces of the west pushed back the Nazi threat and exterminated it. As we now appreciate, had we been a little more resolute to start with, that destructive war, which cost 50 million lives, might not have come to pass.
The hon. Member for Brent, East, among others, suggested that the issue is all about oil, and there is an element of truth there, in that oil is the basis of our civilisation. The United Kingdom need not worry overmuch about an adequate supply of oil, but the vast majority of countries, particularly those in the third world, owe their very existence to a supply of relatively cheap oil. If, at any stage, one country obtains a stanglehold on oil supplies, we shall not be affected half so much as the economies of the third world, which will be destroyed. Those who have the third world's interests at heart had better understand that only by resolving the Gulf crisis can we hope for the third-world countries to make anything of themselves in terms of economic viability.
The conduct of the west during the crisis has been very good. I sincerely hope that there will not be an armed conflict. However, if it comes to that, I am certain that our officers and generals, with their military expertise, in conjunction with our allies and the United States—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the men?"]—and the men, of

897
course, all of whom are professionals in this country—will all discharge their duties with outstanding vigour and determination.
The exercise of armed conflict will naturally have been considered by the planners. I hope that, at least initially, we shall fall back on the role of the air forces of the allies to conduct the initial operation against Iraq before committing any ground forces. It is extremely difficult from this position to second-guess how our military men will plan such an exercise, and we hope that it will not come to pass. Clearly, we hope for a gradual escalation which will give the time—all the time—for Saddam Hussein to reflect and to make some arrangement whereby he can withdraw even after a conflict has started.
Any conflict is extraordinarily distressing in this modern day and age. We have got used to having a long period of peace in this country, and the prospect of our military men coming home in coffins is not something that we wish to consider likely in any way. But nor are the consequences of allowing a dictator—by any standards, and by all hon. Members, Saddam Hussein is regarded as a wholly unacceptable leader—to have his way in any shape or form as a result of the action that he has taken. Only by standing absolutely resolutely with our allies can we impress upon Saddam Hussein the consequences of his remaining in occupation of Kuwait. If there is any smattering of dissent or derision about the west's stance so far, that can only encourage him to continue his occupation and will bring the threat of conflict ever nearer.
9.6 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Shortly after the first emergency debate on the Gulf crisis in September, I went out to Iraq with my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). We were the first hon. Members to visit Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, and we were members of an international peace mission with two objectives—first, to make representations for the release of hostages and, secondly, to try to establish whether there was any basis for a peaceful settlement to the crisis. In the context of the first objective, I am sure that the whole House, the country and the world will welcome last Thursday's announcement of the release of hostages. It now looks as though many families will have a happy Christmas and will be reunited with their loved ones who have been forcibly separated from them for many months.
Last Thursday's announcement was a vindication of the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) and my colleagues who took part in the mission of which I was a member. We were subjected to a great deal of criticism, vilification and verbal abuse before we even left this country on that peace mission. In September, as now, there was far too much talk of war and those who wished to speak of peace were treated almost like lunatics or traitors.
Despite all the criticism, our stance was justified. We tried to comunicate with the Iraqi authorities rather than toeing the line of our critics, who claimed that the best way to proceed was to refuse to communicate and to seek to
898
isolate the enemy. Now even the Americans have come round to the idea of talking to Saddam Hussein, and that is also to be welcomed, but I am dismayed—indeed, I am appalled—that the British Government seem simply to parrot the American line that talks should not develop into constructive dialogue and constructive dialogue should not be allowed to develop into meaningful negotiations even though negotiations are explicitly referred to in item 3 of United Nations resolution 660.
The only hope of peace in Kuwait, Iraq and, indeed, throughout the middle east is to ensure that the talks develop into dialogue and that dialogue develops into meaningful negotiations. We must try to obtain a peaceful settlement with the consistent implementation of United Nations resolutions, including Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. We must consider the wider region with Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Yet instead, the American and British Governments seem hell bent on using United Nations resolution 678 as a mandate for war, even though there is no explicit reference in that resolution either to war or to the use of force. The resolution explicitly refers to the use of "all necessary means" of implementing other United Nations resolutions.
It could be argued that the use of force may not be necessary, particularly if more effort is put into finding a diplomatic solution. In other words, non-violent means have not been exhausted. As other hon. Members have said, we must give sanctions more time to work. But above all, genuine negotiations must be entered into—we must not simply rely on a massive military build-up which could escalate into chemical, biological and even nuclear warfare, with horrendous consequences for people in the area and possibly for many of our constituents, too.
Today is almost certainly our last chance to debate and vote on this issue before the mid-January deadline, and it may be the last chance to do so before the outbreak of war. If there is no vote today, the Government will claim a unanimous mandate from Parliament for declaring war and, in effect, pronouncing a death sentence on many people, including innocent men, women and children, and many of our constituents who are out there in the armed forces.
It was interesting to note at Prime Minister's Question Time that in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) we received no assurance from the Prime Minister that he would rule out the possibility of conscription. I say this to the Defence Secretary: I would support any young constituent of mine who tore up and burned a conscription paper. I say that to the warmongers in this House, the White House, or wherever they may lurk. Why do they not ever so bravely volunteer their own services and go out to the Gulf themselves instead of sending young people out there to be killed or maimed for life?
I believe that a vote for the Government today may be interpreted as a vote for war; a vote against them will certainly be a vote for peace.
9.14 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was about to say that I would be brief, but I think that I shall have to be!

899
First, let me tell the Secretary of State for Defence how grateful I am to him and his Ministers for the kind assistance that they have given a constituent of mine, Miss Jacqueline Noble, who will now be able to go ahead with her wedding in the Old Kirk in Kilmacolm on Friday. She is to marry Signalman Steven Alexander, who is due to go to the Gulf. When I intervened, the Secretary of State kindly allowed the young lad to come up to Scotland to marry his fiancée. I sincerely hope that he and all his comrades in the British armed forces will return unharmed from Saudi Arabia when Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait.
As I think the Secretary of State knows, I tried to intervene in his speech in the September debate. I now seek an assurance from him —if I can attract his attention—that our medical facilities in Saudi Arabia are, in his opinion and that of his officials, entirely adequate to meet any contingency.
I have argued the case for sanctions all along. I said earlier, when I intervened on the Foreign Secretary, that, even if sanctions take a year or 18 months to inflict a crippling blow on Saddam Hussein's evil regime, that will be infinitely preferable to the sacrifice of the life of a single British service man—or any service man—in that troubled part of the world.
In that connection, I was heartened to read what James Schlesinger had to say in The Guardian on 5 December. Mr. Schlesinger, a former CIA director, said:
"The embargo, backed up by a naval blockade, is the most successful ever achieved aside from time of war. Early on, it was officially estimated that it would require a year for the sanctions to work. It now appears to be working more rapidly than anticipated."
Just three weeks ago in the United Nations building in New York, in the presence of several hon. Members, Ms. Marjetta Rasi, the Finnish ambassador to the Security Council and chairman of the Security Council's sanctions committee, told me—and other members of a small delegation to the UN—
"In over 40 years of UN peace-keeping Missions, this is the first time sanctions have ever been effective."
I dissociate myself from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who referred to sanctions-busting by American firms. Ms. Rasi told me that sanctions were working, and that the Iraqi economy was being crippled. That, in my view, is how we must proceed.
While in America, I paid a weekend visit to some friends in a small town in rural New Jersey. Regrettably, the inhabitants of that small town to whom I spoke were much better informed of the implications of a military strike against Saddam Hussein than others to whom I have spoken in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. I support what was said by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath): the savage and dreadful consequences of a military strike have not been spelt out by the Government to the British people.
When I was in America, I read in the newspapers and heard on television and radio how the Catholic bishops there had sent a letter to President Bush warning against military intervention and arguing for continued adherence to sanctions. A couple of days later the Episcopalian bishops sent an identical letter to the President. We in the United Kingdom should be doing the same—supporting sanctions, even though they may take a long time to take effect.
900
There would be many casualties in a war against Saddam Hussein. In addition to the dreadful slaughter, the United Nations would suffer. When Saddam's troops have withdrawn, the border between Iraq and Kuwait and between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must be policed by a blue-helmeted UN peacekeeping force made up of soldiers from countries throughout the world. Our first priority must be to support sanctions.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a vital debate. It is about life and death, peace and war. Is it possible to extend it in some way, in view of the number of hon. Members who would like to speak but who have not been called?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Would that I had the power to do so.
9.21 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: This is the third occasion on which we have dealt with the subject of the Gulf. Throughout Opposition Members have sought opportunities to debate all aspects of the crisis. The previous two debates were at our request, and we shall continue to press the Government to provide time for debate, particularly if there is a change in the nature of the crisis, for better or worse. We shall do that regardless of arrangements for the recess or anything else.
In this debate we have moved our attention to the prospect of the use of force as a consequence of United Nations resolution 678. That resolution does not require the use of force. Indeed, it explicitly excludes its use until after 15 January. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, the date was included as a condition for Soviet support. How much optimism was invested in that by the Soviet Union is not clear, but it has afforded the United States an opportunity to describe the extent of the military capability in the Gulf and to seek a peaceful solution.
During a visit that I paid to the Gulf, to visit our troops and to obtain briefings, it was made abundantly clear to me and to those who accompanied me that the extent of the military presence was such that the leader of any country who tempted a response, an attack, from such a military presence would be grossly irresponsible and could not be considered fit to be in charge of a country.
The task of Secretary of State Baker is clear. When he sees Saddam Hussein, he must explain in graphic detail what 2,500 aircraft could do in concerted air strikes in 60 hours. He must describe the damage that would be inflicted on the runways of air bases by Tornados going in at below 200 ft and dropping cluster bombs. Aircraft in hardened shelters are no use if there are no runways from which they can take off. Mr. Baker must point out that all the main roads and supply routes to provide logistical support will be attacked in similar fashion. Saddam Hussein must be informed that all known depots and munitions factories will be attacked. He must be reminded that the locations of chemical weapons plants are known to the allies and those plants will be destroyed. He will be committing hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen into a battle where they will be denied supply spares and many forms of reinforcement within hours of hostilities commencing.

901
The war between Iran and Iraq was a land war, with only a small part being played by the air forces. In any Gulf war, the 500,000 allied troops and the presence of carriers, frigates, destroyers and minesweepers in such numbers means that the armoured divisions will advance with air cover and the amphibious landings will be supported by massive air back-up. Saddam Hussein must be left with no excuses about the extent of his ignorance of the dreadful effect of the horrendous arsenal that has been gathered in Arabia; the implications must be brought home to him.
I regret that in some ways we seem to be personalising the issue, but we must recognise that we are talking about an absolute ruler, a fascist dictator who, like the emperor in the children's story, is not used to being told that he has no clothes. Saddam Hussein is the sort of person who is more likely to shoot the messenger and ignore the message. We must get the message across, through James Baker, that there cannot be any doubt that, after the meeting on 25 July attended by ambassador Ms. Glaspie, the United States is still equally concerned about an Iraqi invasion. At that time, the American ambassador to Iraq left an impression that the Americans would not object to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. That is no longer the case, and it is abundantly clear that Mr. Baker has to go to Iraq and make certain that Saddam Hussein understands the consequences of military action.
Such a policy has been called the war option, and this morning's editorial in The Independent said that it might be the lesser of two evils. I totally disagree. War will unleash a conflict of unparalleled ferocity, which forces us to consider as paramount the economic option.
A number of claims have been made for sanctions. The record of sanctions is a mixed one. Two recent studies referred to in Susan Willett's book "Economic Implications of the Gulf Crisis" suggest that in the study of 100 incidences of sanctions since 1914, examined by Haufbauer and Scholt, 36 have been successful. A more recent work by Margaret Doxey of Chatan house suggests that there is little evidence to show that sanctions have achieved their objectives, and in the majority of cases have had the opposite effect to that desired by those advocating their imposition.
The key to the success of sanctions has to be the maintaining of an international consensus. That is why the Labour party has continually argued that all sanctions must first secure United Nations approval. However, greater assistance must be given to the front-line states. Jordan is likely to lose $2 billion, Egypt is likely to lose $9 billion and Turkey is likely to lose $5 billion in the 12 months up to August next year. Steps must be taken to ensure that we keep a hold on oil prices because, although the dependence of the world's poorest countries on oil is less than that of the first world, their ability to pay for the meagre amount of oil they consume is far less. The significance of oil in the distribution of food in famine-stricken sub-Saharan Africa cannot be exaggerated. It is not enough for oil-rich countries to make payments to help those third world nations; they will have to be more sensitive tc, the needs of the recipients, certainly more sensitive than organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World bank have been so far.
Mr. Healey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was an extraordinarily successful example of sanctions, applied in 1956 against aggression by two large European states and by Israel, at Suez? The mere threat of American financial sanctions against Britain produced the withdrawal of all three armies within a week.
Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whom I have heard make that point before. I was not suggesting that sanctions will not work. I think that they can work, but we must make it clear that they must be applied on the basis of sustaining the international consensus, part of which involves securing the rights of the poorer nations which will make the biggest sacrifice during this lengthy process which, we are all agreed, will take longer than six months. I should like to think that the sort of sanctions imposed in 1956, which secured their objective in a matter of days, could have been imposed in this case —but I fear that this time they will take somewhat longer.
Mr. Healey: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I must point out that oil sanctions are robbing Iraq of 90 per cent. of its hard currency, which it requires to buy spares for its aircraft and to buy a large number of other items of critical importance. The analogy is a very close one.
Mr. O'Neill: The imposition of sanctions is not an easy option. It will require major sacrifices from the sanctionists, which are often countries that are already impoverished. It will require a degree of solidarity that becomes more difficult to sustain as their burden increases. The United Nations provision for humanitarian aid could be used as an excuse for undermining the economic embargo; and all the while Iraq can be adjusting to the privations and could be perfecting its weapon systems.
A recent article in a defence studies booklet by Martin Navias makes it clear that, without foreign assistance, the Iraqis would probably be incapable of producing nuclear weapons within five years. If they were to receive the sort of scientific assistance that they would require, they could at best produce nuclear weapons within 24 to 36 months. So hon. Members who suggest that we are on the verge of nuclear attack from Iraq are at best grossly exaggerating and at worst indulging in irresponsible scaremongering.
If sanctions were to fail, the United Nations would have failed the greatest ever test of its authority. At a time when it is unencumbered by cold war diversions, and when all the permanent members are seeking to work in concert, and when unprecedented backing has been given to sanctions, the price of failure with sanctions is almost too high to contemplate. Nevertheless, we must persist with them—they must be given a chance.
Those of us who urge this course must recognise that at the end of the day—I shall not say when—we may well have to use force of arms. I agree with my hon. Friends who have argued the case for persisting with sanctions, but I also believe that if sanctions are not seen to work we may have to resort to force of arms. Some of my hon. Friends have consistently opposed the deployment of troops and have abjured the use of arms, and they are entitled to their point of view, but I must tell my other hon. Friends that there may well come a time—I hope later, or better still never—when we must recognise the possibility of using force.
Mr. Harry Ewing: How will my hon. Friend judge whether sanctions are working?
Mr. O'Neill: I will decide that when the United Nations committee reports to the effect that they are not working. The UN is responsible for the administration and control of the sanctions, and it produces reports on their effectiveness. We have given the UN that authority; now we must trust its judgment in the matter.
I do not want to hear people talking about war starting immediately after 15 January. However, for the people of Kuwait, the war started on 2 August. Hostages graphically describe the consequences of the invasion and annexation and the reduction of the state of Kuwait to a heap of rubble. The flouting and defiance of international law cannot he tolerated. I remind my hon. Friends that bad cases do not make good law.
Iraq already owes vast sums. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that about 95 per cent. of Iraq's income comes from oil. Its oil revenues are $13 billion and it has continuing expenditure of $24 billion. That does not take account of accumulated foreign debt of more than $80 billion. The bill for the post Iran war reconstruction has been estimated at $230 billion. It is little wonder that in February, at the Arab co-operation council, Saddam Hussein announced that he was seeking not only a moratorium on the Gulf states' wartime loans but an immediate grant of $30 billion.
The claims and counter claims of the Gulf states and Iraq will have to be dealt with in the kind of negotiations which have been mentioned in the debate and which follow the last and often unmentioned part of the United Nations first resolution.
As I have said, as the cost of continued failure to resolve this crisis becomes better known and better understood, the options seem to close. The options are economic sanctions with their likelihood of impoverishment, the force of arms and the certain loss of life and devastation. Against all of those, the case for diplomatic action remains unchallenged. The continued military presence represents only one stated aspect of the threat. The capability is there for all to see, and we all know what would happen if arms were used.
If the Iraqis believe that the Kuwaitis have stolen $24 billion from the Rumaila oilfield, they should go through international arbitration procedures and have their case examined. There must be no talk of giving Iraq the oilfields in order to get Saddam Hussein to leave peaceably. That would merely legitimise Iraqi aggression and place Kuwait under permanent threat of subsequent invasion.
In recognition of his isolation and of the threat to his people and to the middle east, let Saddam Hussein withdraw his troops and let talks begin. The United Nations is the place to resolve these disputes. That is why we have said again and again at the Dispatch Box, at our party conference and at every opportunity to com-municate with the public that the support of the world community must be sought before any action is taken.
I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech, that the Opposition expect an opportunity to debate this issue if conditions deteriorate before 15 January. The House must have an opportunity to have its views heard. The UN-sponsored allies have shown their intent and willingness to deploy troops and the UN has shown support for military action if all else fails. Iraq cannot be certain about the timing of such action. Therefore, the threat of military action is greatest in its uncertainty. The answer is in the hands of Iraq. It cannot say that it has not
904
been warned or that it has not been given a chance to arrive at a peaceful settlement. Let us hope that Iraq chooses the peaceful way.
9.38 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): This has been a grave and sombre debate, wiith hon. Members on both sides of the House expressing strong feelings. It was admirably introduced by measured speeches from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
The issues with which I want to start are those on which the House is united. The first is that, although not all hon. Members mentioned it, all deplore the aggression against Kuwait and the behaviour of Saddam Hussein's regime with the atrocities and cruelty that are only now being more fully revealed to us with the return of some of the hostages.
Today's debate has been about what means might best achieve the end of that unacceptable situation. But before I address those matters, I want to mention another issue on which I know that the House is united. In that connection, perhaps I might be excused a personal comment. Like my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and many others in the House, I have been involved in this issue since 2 August, in my case in the particularly direct sense that we had a non-combatant military training team in Kuwait at the time of the Iraqi invasion. I know that the House will share something of the joy that I feel, which is felt throughout the nation, and most of all in the families of those concerned, at the welcome developments of the past week.
Another jumbo is on its way at this minute, which I hope will arrive at midnight tonight. The House may recall that, through the medium of the broadcasts of our proceedings, I assured our non-combatant military training team that we would never forget it. We never have. It has been a constant concern for us, and I pray now that that anguish has at last been ended.
Because of our experiences so far, we very much endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said about the importance of counselling. There is the joy of return, but the agony, anguish and difficulty of readjustment is not over. My right hon. Friend will know the steps that have been taken by the Government, the voluntary agencies and the Gulf support group to help those returning from, in many cases, quite appalling experiences, with counselling and information packs, and the ready presence of the Foreign Office and the Department of Social Security, with help with housing if necessary.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) for his tribute to the diplomatic service. There have been many brickbats flying around suggesting that the diplomatic service in Baghdad and, initially, in Kuwait may not have coped as competently as it should. Given all the unexpected difficulties that they faced, my right hon. Friend was right to express admiration and respect for our ambassador, Mr. Weston, Larry Banks, our consul in Kuwait, and Mr. Harold Walker, our ambassador in Baghdad, and his team for the way in which they coped with such a difficult situation.

905
Despite our joy at the return of the hostages, the agony of the Kuwaiti people continues. We have seen—I believe that it is true—the first attempt to extinguish a member of the United Nations since the founding of that body in 1945. There has been torture, murder and looting and we are now hearing the reports of our returned hostages. In addition, those who sought to escape from that appalling situation suffered the ultimate indignity of being stripped of their national identity and papers as they fled from the intimidation and terror in their country.
That suffering is not exclusively confined to Kuwait. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup fairly referred to Jordan as a country which has suffered much in the side winds of this appalling situation. I can confirm that the Government recognise the difficulties faced by the King and the Government of Jordan and we are doing all we can to see what further help can be given to them.
Another echo sounded in the debate was picked up by the right hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and for Gorton. I refer to the role of the United Nations on a scale quite beyond previous expectations. That is a great achievement, but it represents an enormous challenge as well. The United Nations must succeed, because if it fails the gravity of the situation will manifestly be that much greater. However, we can see clearly that, despite all the attempts at intimidation, bribery, distortion and hostage-taking, and all the other devices used by Saddam Hussein, the world coalition has worked remarkably well.
Resolution after resolution has been passed by the United Nations Security Council. It has now produced 11, culminating with resolution 678, and we see in them all the strength and determination in the world position against Iraq's aggression. That is reflected in the original resolution 660, through the imposition of embargoes in resolution 661, to the recognition in resolution 678 that although a peaceful settlement is sought as a result of embargoes, there exists also a credible military option—the backing of sanctions with a manifestly credible potential use of force.
That situation was well echoed in the remarks of the hon. Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who made their positions clear. The same can be said of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), and of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir. J. Stokes), and of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
There is a credible military option. The majority of the substantial forces now in the Gulf are American, but it is truly a world effort, with more than 30 nations involved. Forces have been contributed from every continent. Sixteen countries have ground forces in Saudi Arabia, and four fifths of them are Muslim countries. We have made our own contribution. We now have some 17,000 personnel in theatre, and that figure will build rapidly in the weeks immediately ahead, taking our commitment in theatre to some 35,000, comprising the First Armoured Division, together with the naval components, which is a very credible contribution to the united effort.
906
I must strike one discordant note in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). He asked me to agree that, while we should go ahead with deployments in the Gulf, the arrangements in respect of "Options for Change" and economies in other areas should be discontinued. I can give my hon. Friend no such assurance. It is precisely because we must ensure that we make the best use of our defence resources and do not waste them in areas where they are not needed that they can make the most effective contribution where they are wanted most.
There seems to be a rumour running around Falkirk, shared between east and west, that there is some chance of conscription being introduced. I do not know why Falkirk in particular has got that message, but I must tell the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) jointly that there is no truth in it. We have no plans for conscription in the sense that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East suggested. When I announced the deployment of the First Armoured Division and the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) both expressed their concern about medical provision, I made it clear that we shared that concern, and would examine possible selective use of reservists in specialist areas, particularly the medical field. I am glad to say that we have had a most encouraging response from people in the medical field and specialists volunteering—both reservists and Territorial Army—to go to the Gulf.
Many employers have undertaken to protect the jobs of those who volunteer, but some volunteers remain concerned about the security of their jobs if they go. At the moment I am seeing whether we can get enough volunteers who are free of that concern, so that we do not need to take any steps, but it might be necessary to call limited numbers up, under the Reserve Forces Act 1980, which would provide employment protection for any volunteers—the House will understand the importance of this.
I shall seek to maintain the voluntary basis, but I shall also seek to ensure that volunteers have employment protection. I hope that the House will think that that approach is sensible. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will forgive me—I have directly answered the point that he made. If it is necessary for me to take powers under the Act, I shall report to the House.
It is enormously encouraging how much suppport we are getting from other countries. I have just returned from a meeting of the Western European Union, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I was able to ask for further medical support for our forces in the Gulf, and that is now progressing well.
There is another matter which I should report to the House which I know is of concern. Tonight we are celebrating the reunion of many families who have been separated since August. I passionately believe that one of the reasons why they are being reunited tonight is that other people in our forces have been prepared to accept separation in the line of duty, to establish the military option in the Gulf. We should recognise that. A considerable number of wives will be without their husbands for Christmas and new year —they may be in Germany, or in other theatres. Husbands and sons have gone to play their part among British forces in the Gulf. They have borne that cheerfully and have not undertaken it in any grudging spirit.

907
There have been some criticisms about whether people would recognise that fact. Therefore, I want the House to know how much I appreciate the British public's response to my appeal for support for our service men and women in the Gulf and in other areas at Christmas and new year.
I am glad to announce that the total value of gifts is now well into seven figures. Special aircraft will start leaving next week with parcels carrying the new BFPO 3000 number for our forces and a British Legion/Daily Telegraph stocking for each service man and woman. We are sending 11,000 lbs of turkey, 96,000 mince pies, 16,000 Christmas puddings and—to show that the Scots are not forgotten—we are also sending, rather unusually, more than a tonne of frozen haggis for Hogmanay. We are also sending a large range of gifts. A new local broadcasting station—British Forces Broadcasting Service—will start this weekend and will operate 24 hours a day in the Jubail area.
I am glad to say that both Mercury and British Telecom are arranging new telephone facilities. In addition to various cheap call facilities, there will be a free call for every service man in the Gulf, organised as a result of donations to the British Legion.
In a moving phrase, the right hon. Member for Gorton said that he would hate to see war in Kuwait. He would hate even more to see a wider middle east conflagration. The serious situation that we face has been recognised by the entire House. That has been shown in the debate and will be shown in the vote that we are about to take. We know that after 15 January, under resolution 678, member states are authorised to use all necessary means to achieve the United Nations resolutions.
The views expressed in the debate have been divided into three categories. One category has taken the view that force is never justified. That view is held by a small group, but their voices will be listened to with respect. I recognise that it is not cowardly to be a pacifist and to believe that in no circumstances can force be justified. However, if that was the majority view of the House or the rest of the world, Saddam Hussein could safely continue to occupy Kuwait, and he would certainly do so.
I need to address the view held by a larger group of those who are not persuaded by the Government's position. They believe not that force could never be justified but that we should wait a little longer. They argue that sanctions could work if they were given a little longer. What evidence do they have that a longer period would achieve results? How much longer should we tell the Kuwaitis that they must wait? How much longer do we tell our forces and the other allied forces that they should wait? The hon. Member for Walsall, South had it right. There is not a limitless credible military option. That has to be recognised by the House.
Mr. David Young rose——
Mr. King: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here during the debate.
Another point that has to be addressed by those who query my argument is that if Saddam Hussein is willing to go, why has he not gone already? Having had six months, why should a further six months encourage him to leave? Nobody wants to see conflict. We want to see observance of the United Nations resolutions. To do that, there must. be no uncertainty in Baghdad about our resolve. There must be no querying of our resolution. We must
908
understand that we are trustees of the best new hope of the Security Council and the United Nations that any of us have had in our lifetime. It has to succeed. To do that, it will need the support of the military option.
We have now seen the release of the hostages. I made it clear earlier that, despite the genuinely philanthropic efforts of many to try to improve the position and accelerate the release of the hostages, I believe profoundly that they would not have been released if it had not been clear that we are determined on our purpose, that we are not prepared to tolerate the continued aggression against Kuwait and that Saddam Hussein has no option to stay in Kuwait—either he leaves peacefully or, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, he will be thrown out.
There was an argument about a phrase that I used a little earlier. One of my hon. Friends asked whether it would be quick and easy. I have said that it would be short, sharp and quick.
Mr. Benn rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 455.

Division No. 26]

[10 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs. Irene

Lambie, David

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lamond, James

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Lewis, Terry

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

Livingstone, Ken

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

McAllion, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

McKelvey, William

Clay, Bob

McMaster, Gordon

Cohen, Harry

Madden, Max

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cousins, Jim

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cryer, Bob

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cummings, John

Mullin, Chris

Dalyell, Tam

Nellist, Dave

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

Parry, Robert

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Skinner, Dennis

Faulds, Andrew

Strang, Gavin

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

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Gordon, Mildred

Wray, Jimmy

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Hinchliffe, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hood, Jimmy

Mr. Dennis Canavan and

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Baldry, Tony

Aitken, Jonathan

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Alexander, Richard

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Barron, Kevin

Allason, Rupert

Batiste, Spencer

Allen, Graham

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Alton, David

Beckett, Margaret

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Beggs, Roy

Amess, David

Bellingham, Henry

Amos, Alan

Bellotti, David

Anderson, Donald

Bendall, Vivian

Arbuthnot, James

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Benyon, W.

Armstrong, Hilary

Bermingham, Gerald

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Ashby, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Ashton, Joe

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Aspinwall, Jack

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Atkins, Robert

Blunkett, David

Atkinson, David

Boateng, Paul

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

909

Boswell, Tim

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Bottomley, Peter

Fallon, Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fatchett, Derek

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Favell, Tony

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bowis, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Boyes, Roland

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Fishburn, John Dudley

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fisher, Mark

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Flynn, Paul

Brazier, Julian

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bright, Graham

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

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

Forman, Nigel

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Forth, Eric

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foster, Derek

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Foulkes, George

Buck, Sir Antony

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Buckley, George J.

Fox, Sir Marcus

Burt, Alistair

Franks, Cecil

Butcher, John

Freeman, Roger

Butler, Chris

French, Douglas

Caborn, Richard

Fry, Peter

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gale, Roger

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Gardiner, George

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Carrington, Matthew

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Carttiss, Michael

George, Bruce

Cartwright, John

Gill, Christopher

Cash, William

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Golding, Mrs Llin

Chapman, Sydney

Goodlad, Alastair

Chope, Christopher

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Churchill, Mr

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

Gould, Bryan

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Gregory, Conal

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Coleman, Donald

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Colvin, Michael

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Conway, Derek

Grist, Ian

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Grocott, Bruce

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ground, Patrick

Cope, Rt Hon John

Grylls, Michael

Corbett, Robin

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Cormack, Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Couchman, James

Hannam, John

Cox, Tom

Hardy, Peter

Cran, James

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

Critchley, Julian

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Harman, Ms Harriet

Cunningham, Dr John

Harris, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hawkins, Christopher

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Hayes, Jerry

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Day, Stephen

Haynes, Frank

Devlin, Tim

Hayward, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Dicks, Terry

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Dixon, Don

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Dobson, Frank

Henderson, Doug

Doran, Frank

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Dorrell, Stephen

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Dover, Den

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hill, James

Dunn, Bob

Hind, Kenneth

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Durant, Tony

Holt, Richard

Eastham, Ken

Home Robertson, John

Eggar, Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

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

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Evennett, David

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

910

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Meale, Alan

Howells, Geraint

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Michael, Alun

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Miller, Sir Hal

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Hunter, Andrew

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Monro, Sir Hector

Ingram, Adam

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Irvine, Michael

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Irving, Sir Charles

Morgan, Rhodri

Jack, Michael

Morley, Elliot

Jackson, Robert

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Janman, Tim

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Jessel, Toby

Morrison, Sir Charles

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Moss, Malcolm

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Mudd, David

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Murphy, Paul

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Neale, Gerrard

Key, Robert

Needham, Richard

Kilfedder, James

Nelson, Anthony

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Neubert, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Nicholls, Patrick

Kirkhope, Timothy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Knapman, Roger

Norris, Steve

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

O'Brien, William

Knox, David

O'Hara, Edward

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

O'Neill, Martin

Lang, Ian

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Latham, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Lawrence, Ivan

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Leadbitter, Ted

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Lee, John (Pendle)

Page, Richard

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Paice, James

Leighton, Ron

Patnick, Irvine

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Pawsey, James

Lilley, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Livsey, Richard

Pike, Peter L.

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Portillo, Michael

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Powell, William (Corby)

Lord, Michael

Prescott, John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Price, Sir David

McAvoy, Thomas

Quin, Ms Joyce

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Radice, Giles

Macdonald, Calum A.

Raffan, Keith

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Randall, Stuart

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Redwood, John

Maclean, David

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

McLeish, Henry

Reid, Dr John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Rhodes James, Robert

McNamara, Kevin

Riddick, Graham

McWilliam, John

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Madel, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Maginnis, Ken

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Major, Rt Hon John

Robertson, George

Malins, Humfrey

Robinson, Geoffrey

Mans, Keith

Roe, Mrs Marion

Maples, John

Rogers, Allan

Marek, Dr John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Marland, Paul

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Marlow, Tony

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Rost, Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Rowe, Andrew

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Rowlands, Ted

Maude, Hon Francis

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Maxton, John

Ryder, Richard

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Sackville, Hon Tom

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Salmond, Alex

Meacher, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

911

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Tracey, Richard

Sheerman, Barry

Tredinnick, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Trimble, David

Shelton, Sir William

Trippier, David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Trotter, Neville

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Turner, Dennis

Shersby, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Sims, Roger

Vaz, Keith

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Viggers, Peter

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

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

Walden, George

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

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waller, Gary

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Walley, Joan

Soley, Clive

Walters, Sir Dennis

Speed, Keith

Ward, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Warded, Gareth (Gower)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Squire, Robin

Wareing, Robert N.

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Warren, Kenneth

Steen, Anthony

Watts, John

Stern, Michael

Wells, Bowen

Stevens, Lewis

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wheeler, Sir John

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Whitney, Ray

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Widdecombe, Ann

Stokes, Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Stott, Roger

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Straw, Jack

Wilson, Brian

Sumberg, David

Winnick, David

Summerson, Hugo

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Winterton, Nicholas

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wolfson, Mark

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Yeo, Tim

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Thorne, Neil

Mr. David Lightbown and

Thornton, Malcolm

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Thurnham, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
10.15 pm
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move,
That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

  Additional entry
  1. The following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place:—
  The Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland.

  Entries omitted
  2. The following entries shall be omitted:—
  The General Practice Finance Corporation.
  The entry beginning 'A Medical Appeal Tribunal'.
  The New Towns Staff Commission.
  The Police Complaints Board for Northern Ireland.
  The Traffic Commissioners for any area (including the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Traffic Area).
  The Tribunal established under Part II of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.
  The University Grants Committee.

  Other amendments
  3.—(1) In the entry 'The National Development Team for Mentally Handicapped People', for 'Mentally Handicapped People' there shall be substituted 'People with a Mental Handicap'.
  (2) For the entry 'The Northern Ireland Electricity Service' there shall be substituted the following entry:—
  Northern Ireland Electricity.

PART III OF SCHEDULE 1

  Additional entries
  4. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:

  Additional Commissioner of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.

  Chairman of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.

  Chairman of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Chairman of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.

  Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Laganside Corporation.

  Chairman of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

  Chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board.

  Chairman of a special health and social services agency established under Article 3 of the Health arid Personal Social Services (Special Agencies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990.

  Chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  Chairman of the Training, Enterprise and Education Advisory Group for Wales.

  Chief executive of the Simpler Trade Procedures Board. Director of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited.

  Director of Citybus Limited.

  Director of Flexibus Limited.

  Director of Northern Ireland Airports Limited.

  Director of Northern Ireland Railways Company Limited.

  Director of Nuclear Electric p.l.c.

  Director of Scottish Nuclear Limited.

  Director of Ulsterbus Limited.

  Member of a Medical Appeal Tribunal appointed under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 12 to the Social Security Act 1975.

  Member of a Medical Appeal Tribunal for Northern Ireland appointed under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 12 to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975.

  Member of the panel of chairmen for Social Security Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed

  913
  under section 97(2D)(a) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975, or of the panel of chairmen for Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed under paragraph 2(4)(a) of Schedule 12 to that Act.

  Member of the staff of the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

  Person appointed under section 3(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to carry out functions relating to the political restriction of posts under local authorities, within the meaning of Part I of that Act.

  Social fund Commissioner.

  Traffic Commissioner for any area constituted for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.

  Entries omitted
  5. The following entries shall be omitted:—

  The entry beginning 'Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils'.

  The entry beginning 'Chairman of either of the Consultative Councils'.

  Chairman of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas.

  Chairman in receipt of remuneration of the Electricity Consumers' Council.

  Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Scotland.

  Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Wales.

  Chairman of the Board of the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education.

  Chairman of the National Seed Development Organisation Limited.

  Chairman of the Northern Ireland Staffs Council for the Health and Social Services.

  Chairman or Chief Executive of the Simplification of International Trade Procedures Board.

  Chairman of the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland.

  The entry beginning 'The Commissioner appointed'.

  Director of the British Petroleum Company p.l.c. nominated by a Minister of the Crown or government department.

  Director of Harland and Wolff p.l.c.

  Director of Royal Ordnance p.l.c.

  Director of S.B. (Realisations) p.l.c. nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.

  Director of Short Brothers p.l.c.

  Director of the successor company (within the meaning of the Airports Act 1986) being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

  Director of the successor company (within the meaning of the Gas Act 1986) being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

  General Manager or Secretary of the Scottish Special Housing Association.

  Member of a panel appointed under section 97(2D)(a) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 of persons eligible to act as chairmen of Social Security Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.

  Member of the Trinity House Lighthouse Board nominated by the Secretary of State.

  Other amendments
  6.—(1) In the entry beginning 'Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Dental Estimates Board', for 'Estimates' there shall be substituted 'Practice'.
  (2) In the entry beginning 'Chairman of the Scottish Dental Estimates Board', for 'Estimates' there shall be substituted 'Practice'.
  (3) In the entry 'Chairman of the tribunal constituted under section 463 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970', for '463' and '1970' there shall be substituted '706' and '1988' respectively.
  (4) In the entry beginning 'Chairman of the United Kingdom Central Council', the words from 'if appointed' onwards shall be omitted.
  (5) In the entry 'Director of British Nuclear Fuels Limited', for 'Limited' there shall be substituted 'p.l.c.'.
  (6) In the entry beginning 'Director of any company in receipt of financial assistance', the words from 'the Distribution of Industry Act 1945' to '1967: shall be omitted.
  (7) For the entry 'Member of a Wages Council or Central Co-ordinating Committee appointed under paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2 to the Wages Councils (Northern Ireland) Order 1982' there shall be substituted the following entry:
  Member of a Wages Council appointed under paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 2 to the Wages (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

  PART IV OF SCHEDULE I
  7. In the first column, for the entry 'Her Majesty's Commissioner of Lieutenancy in the City of London' there shall be substituted the following entry:—
  Member of Her Majesty's Commission of Lieutenancy for the City of London.
  The motion seeks the approval of the House to the amendment by Order in Council to schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975— [Interruption.] I am delighted to know from the encouraging noises around me that this is a matter of such widespread interest to all hon. Members.
  As the House is well aware, the Act is concerned with the maintenance of the independence of the House and the safeguarding of hon. Members from undue influence by the Executive through the exercise of its patronage. Schedule 1 lists those offices whose holders are thereby disqualified from membership of the House.
  It has been the usual practice for any legislation that establishes new offices or winds up existing ones to amend schedule 1 accordingly. The 1975 Act is therefore reprinted from time to time, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, to incorporate such amendments. The last reprint was made on 1 January 1987. A further reprint will be ordered when the new order has been made. In addition, from time to time it is necessary to use the procedure outlined in section 5(1) to bring schedule 1 up to date by Order in Council. That section provides for the schedule to be amended, following a resolution by the House, either by adding offices which have been created by administrative action, by amending or correcting existing entries, or by deleting offices that no longer exist or for which statutory disqualification is no longer appropriate. The procedure has been followed on eight previous occasions, the first being in 1961 and the last in December 1986.
  Copies of the explanatory note describing the amendments in detail have been available in the Vote Office since 5 December. I hope that hon. Members have read and studied the note with great care.
  Ministers have been individually responsible for the details of the additional entries and deletions that cover offices within their areas of responsibility. They have based their judgments on the same general principles and criteria which have been followed in the past and which are covered in the explanatory note.
  Of the 66 amendments covered, 27 are new entries, 29 are deletions and 10 are amendments to existing entries. Approximately 202 office holders will be brought into the scope of schedule 1; and up to 120 others will no longer be disqualified, including the holders of offices that have been abolished. There is, therefore, a net increase of 82 office holders being disqualified. However, of the 202 who have been added to the schedule, 70 are members of staff of the

  915
  Northern Ireland Audit Office who were formerly disqualified as civil servants under section 1(1)(b) of the Act.
  We propose that the de minimis level—that is, the level below which the paid offices in the gift of the Crown or Ministers do not normally attract disqualification—should be raised to £7,000. The de minimis limit has no effect on the level of remuneration received by office holders. Its purpose is merely to prevent trivial disqualification. The 1986 figure of £5,000 has been uprated in line with movements in average earnings. We are following a well established procedure, and I commend the motion to the House.
  10.20 pm
  Dr. John Marek: May I first welcome the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) to the Dispatch Box as Minister of State, Privy Council Office? Recently a few Ministers have jumped in and out of office quickly and the previous incumbent of his post, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), held it for only a few months before he was promoted to the Treasury Bench. However, the office is one in which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex will be able to speak. Previously as Chief Whip he always had to hold his tongue.
  I inform Conservative Members who are hanging about that the Opposition Front Bench has no intention of forcing a Division on the motion. I cannot speak for individual hon. Members, but Front-Bench Members wish the motion to go through because clearly the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 needs to be updated from time to time. It was last updated in 1986 and it is time for a further one.
  I shall detain the House for only a few minutes to ask the Minister some questions about the motion. First, I should like to hear from him that the motion is basically a consolidation and updating of the Act. Certain positions which no longer exist have been struck off and other positions which have been created since 1986 have been included. Apart from increasing the de minimis level from £5,000 to £7,000, there seems to be nothing in the motion or the Order in Council that will be laid as a result which is of a political nature or calls for debate on a specific point. It would be useful if the Minister would confirm that.
  I was unable to find particular mention of de minimis levels in the explanatory note which was put in the Vote Office. There is an explanation on page ii which gives the four criteria for disqualification. Criterion A in paragraph 5 explains that
  "To prevent 'trivial disqualifications' a minimum salary level of £500 p.a. was adopted in 1957, rising to £5,000 in 1986, although disqualification might be proposed for offices with remuneration below this level at the Minister's discretion. The corresponding level is now £7,000".
  Perhaps the Minister could give a little more information to the House and give examples of posts which have been disqualified where the remuneration is perhaps just less than £7,000 per annum. Is the uprating from £5,000 to £7,000 important for avoiding disqualification of certain posts under the 1957 and 1975 Acts?
  I should like to make several points about particular offices. First, I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 7 on page 3 of the explanatory note. It is proposed that the
  916
  tribunal established under part II of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 is now such that disqualification is not necessary. The explanatory note says:
  "As the body is rarely convened and is to all intents and purposes defunct, disqualification of the Office-holders is no longer considered appropriate."
  If the body is defunct, why not get rid of it completely? If not, what exactly does it do? How often is it convened, and how important is it? I am quite prepared to believe what the explanatory note says, but a bit more elucidation from the Minister would be useful.
  Let me now refer the Minister to paragraph 13 on page 5, along with paragraph 17 on page 7. Paragraph 13 proposes a new entry:
  "Chairman of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting",
  while paragraph 17 proposes another:
  "Chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board".
  I believe that those posts have been in existence for some time. I may be wrong about that, but, if they have, why has it taken so long for them to be included?
  Paragraph 35 on page 13 proposes another new entry: "Social fund Commissioner". This is, I understand, a long-established body, and it may be only a change of name that is involved—in which case an appropriate deletion will have been made elsewhere—but, whatever the position, a word of elucidation from the Minister would again be helpful.
  The explanatory note says:
  "The office of the social fund Commissioner is established by section 35 of the Social Security Act 1986. The Commissioner receives remuneration of £19,104 per annum and is required to be politically impartial."
  That is quite right.
  The proposed new entry will bring one office holder into the schedule. Was it too late to include that in the 1986 revision? If not, why was it not included?
  Paragraph 47 on page 17 refers to an entry to be deleted:
  "Chairman of the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland".—
  The explanatory note is rather opaque, stating:
  "The disqualification of this Office-holder has been reviewed and his disqualification is no longer thought necessary.
  Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could elucidate.
  Let me repeat that the Opposition have no objection to the motion. We may smile when we note that, between January 1987 and November 1990, the number of additions to those disqualified by primary legislation was 2,600, while the number deleted by primary legislation was 214. The Minister and his Government seem to be creating a good many quangos, and having to add a good many names to the provisions governed not only by the motion that we are discussing, but by primary legislation.
  I remember the Government saying very stridently in 1978–79 that there were too many quangos and that life should be simplified. That does not seem to have happened. However, I repeat that the motion is necessary and that I hope that it will have a speedy passage through the House.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I have examined the explanatory note with interest. It contains a number of common factors relating to people disqualified for election

  917
  —for example, because they are required to be politically impartial—and most of them are appointed by the Government.
  But being appointed by the Government is not the hallmark of being politically impartial. Indeed, after the sacking of various appointees over the years, it is a hallmark of political support for the Government that anybody is appointed, so it is not a clear statement of political impartiality to have been appointed by the Government.
  On page 10 of the explanatory note appears an interesting difference from most of the other appointees.
  No. 27, a new entry, is:
  "Director of Nuclear Electric p.l.c."
  The House will recall that that arises because the Government, in promoting a privatisation procedure which is a national rip-off, have taken out the most expensive part of electricity generation, and that is the nuclear sector. One of the last acts of a former Secretary of State for Energy was to announce that the deCommissioning of Magnox reactors would be a charge on the public purse, not on the shareholders' purse. As a result of that burden on the public purse, there is a new Nuclear Electric plc and its directors will be disqualified under the Order in Council.
  The entry to that effect says:
  "Following the Government's decision to retain nuclear generating capacity in public ownership Nuclear Electric plc, a Companies Act company, was established with effect from 31 March 1990. It is considered that the Directors should be disqualified by virtue of their position of control in companies in receipt of Government grants and funds."
  That is as it should be, because they will have lots of public funds as they decommission stations, as problems arise with nuclear generation and as new nuclear stations are built. Tens of billions of pounds will be involved. But the entry contains this further qualification:
  "Furthermore, the duties of some of the Directors are time-consuming and would prevent them from fulfilling parliamentary duties satisfactorily."
  Nowhere else in the document is that criterion used. We welcome that additional qualification, but if that criterion is being applied to the director of Nuclear Electric plc —that his duties will be time-consuming and could prevent him from fulfilling his parliamentary duties satisfactorily —will the Government recognise that if Members of Parliament are to fulfil their duties satisfactorily, they must work full time at their job?
  I draw the attention of the Minister to the current Register of Members' Interests. We see that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is a director of no fewer than six companies, in addition to being a consultant to 3M (UK) Ltd., Shepherd (Construction) Ltd., and Plaxton Group plc.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: And he runs the Conservative elections.
  Mr. Cryer: No, that is done by somebody else who is a member of Lloyd's.
  Clearly, that hon. Gentleman has a lot on his plate. One is led to wonder whether this is a new attitude on the part of the Government towards their Members who fill the pages of the register so lavishly, unfortunately without giving information about their remuneration from the directorships, parliamentary advisorships and so on that
  918
  Tory Members do as part of their moonlighting, while at the same time they are busy urging ordinary workers to keep their wage claims to a minimum.
  The instrument that we are considering is the precursor to an Order in Council which will give authority to add or delete various categories of people. It suggests that the Government are taking a searching look at the ability of Members to do their job. It is, of course, up to the electorate to determine whether a person is fit to be a Member of this place.
  It would be a good idea if the qualification in entry 27 was understood at large. It would give the Government much more credibility if, when they were urging workers taking home about £150 or £160 a week who want a bit more to catch up with the cost of living due to the Government's economic policies, not to ask for large wage increases, the Government could say, "The outside duties of not just the new director of Nuclear Electric but other appointments are so onerous as to prevent them from fulfilling parliamentary duties satisfactorily and it would be better if Members of Parliament worked full time."
  It is interesting that entry 27 is the only one with that criterion. I should be interested to hear the Minister explain why that post is subject to that particular criterion. Is it in the Ministers' minds to introduce the same criterion for other entries, and they have simply not bothered to repeat it? Why has the director of Nuclear Electric been picked out when I should have thought that there were many other entries from people who would be expected to be equally busy but are not subject to the additional criterion that, as they would be so busy, they could not be Members of Parliament?
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is concerned that people should not work for more than eight hours, he should apply that limit to himself and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We started today's debate at 2.30 pm and finished it six minutes ago, and I hope that, if they are going to take that line, those two Members will not contribute after 10.30 on future evenings.
  I am having a row with the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. I hope that if the chairman discovers that I have mentioned that fact in the debate, he or she will pay attention to my fault in passing on a constituent's complaint without disguising his or her identity. If the chairman becomes a Member of Parliament, I shall draw his or her attention to part III of schedule 1, and shall take up the issue more delicately outside the Chamber.
  Let me pick up the point of the hon. Member for Bradford, South about whether someone has to have a party affiliation to be appointed to one of the boards. When I was a junior Minister in Northern Ireland I was concerned with the affairs of Citybus, Flexibus, Ulsterbus, Northern Ireland Airports and Northern Ireland Railways. I was not aware of the political affiliations of any of the people that I recommended to the Secretary of State. Many of the other appointees not covered by today's motion, but by previous ones, would be insulted if they thought that they obtained their positions because of their political affiliations. If we ever have another Labour Government and they pick up the idea that everyone who serves has to be a signed-up member of the Labour party,

  919
  they will find that the quality of many of those serving will not be as good as it would if they were willing to take other factors into account.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for his kind remarks at the beginning of his short speech. I understand his concern that when one leaves the Whips Office after a period of enforced silence, it is a matter of doubt whether one will find one's tongue again. Perhaps this was an easy baptism for me to ascertain that I could still speak after a fashion.
  I assure the hon. Member for Wrexham that this is essentially a consolidation measure. The order is brought forward simply to update the 1975 Act, and should not be politically contentious in any way. However, the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) inevitably introduced some political contentiousness.
  Criterion 'c' on page ii of the explanatory note states:
  "Offices imposing duties which with regard to time or place would prevent their holders from fulfilling Parliamentary duties satisfactorily, ie they would take up too much time or otherwise prevent an MP from attending Parliament."
  That has been in force, as the note says, since 1957. The hon. Member for Bradford, South, being a fair person, might think that that disqualification would apply especially to Members of the European Parliament: it would be difficult to be an MEP at the same time as being a Member of Parliament. Yet, extraordinarily enough, I note that the hon. Gentleman was an MEP for Sheffield from 1984 to 1989 and for the years 1987 to 1989 he was also the Member of Parliament for Bradford, South. I should have thought that his electorate would have wanted, in his words, to take a searching look at whether their new hon. Member was capable of fulfilling his duties——
  Mr. Cryer: I expected that comment. The Minister will be pleased to know that, although I was for a brief time a Member of the EEC assembly in Strasbourg, I also managed to appear in the top half dozen Labour voters in this House and in the top two dozen of all voters, including Conservative Members.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman defends himself a little too much. He should have thought about the criterion rather carefully before accepting the onerous job of being simultaneously an hon. Member and Member of the European Parliament for more than two years—doubtless drawing two salaries and two sets of other inducements and expenses the while.
  To return to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wrexham, the de minimis limit is a level below which paid offices in the gift of the Crown or of Ministers do not normally attract disqualification. The reason why the limit is not referred to at greater length in the explanatory note or in the statute is that it is a non-statutory administrative device used by Departments to prevent trivial disqualification. Offices of profit in respect of which the annual remuneration is less than the limit would not usually be put forward for addition to the schedule unless they satisfied another criterion, too.
  I am not aware that many posts are caught solely by the increase in the de minimis limit, but the hon. Member for Wrexham will note one example of a new entry at paragraph 17 of the explanatory note. As he said, the post of chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service
  920
  Board has been in existence for some time, but it is now remunerated at a level just above the de minimis limit at £8,085 a year.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the tribunal established under part II of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. I find it rather hard to give him clarification about that tribunal because I am told that it has no chairman and no members and it has never met. Although it has not yet been statutorily abolished, I understand that the relevant provisions or interference in the Act are to be replaced by legislation to implement an EC directive on electromagnetic compatability. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the information that he required.
  The chairman of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting is being included because the Department of Health, in one of its regular reviews of whether other posts for which it is responsible should be included, came to the conclusion that as the chairman of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting was already disqualified, the time had come for the chairman of the English national board to be similarly disqualified. I have noted the somewhat tangential comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on the same subject; they were interesting but I shall not elaborate on them now.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham asked me why the social fund Commissioner had not been disqualified previously. He was not appointed until December 1987 and the social fund Commission was not properly established until April 1988. The schedule was last updated in December 1986. I agree that the reason in the explanatory note about the chairman of the Commission for the education and library boards in Northern Ireland is rather opaque. I shall consult further my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and write to the hon. Member for Wrexham about that disqualification.
  In a minor way the hon. Member for Wrexham tweaked our tail by referring to the increase in the number of posts being created which then qualified for disqualification. Prospective new quangos are always closely examined before they are created and I assure the hon. Gentleman that all new bodies are closely monitored. We keep a close watch on the number of public bodies and we shall present later this month our annual publication "Public Bodies" which will show a net reduction in the total since last year and since 1979.
  I am grateful to hon. Members for their interesting contributions to the debate. I am glad to hear that the Opposition do not intend to divide the House. Once again I commend the motion to the House.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have no intention of dividing the House. One reason for the debate is that occasionally there are mistakes and people are elected who should not have been elected. Many of them are supposed to be Conservatives who are not in the Chamber. I resent the attacks on my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for being in the Common Market assembly. He went there to represent me. He was my representative in the Common Market.
  Mr. Cryer: It is an assembly.
  Mr. Skinner: Yes, an assembly. When he was elected and out of a job I said to him, "I hope that you will shove a lock on every Common Market gravy train that you can find, Bob. That is your job." Off he went, and he set up the socialist campaign group in the Common Market. That was not easy but he managed to recruit a few friends and did a good job. [Interruption.] He did not get Roy Jenkins who was the posh man of the outfit. He had been deputy leader of the Labour party in opposition and was not very well paid because there was no sinecure of any kind. He decided to go to lusher pastures and went to the Common Market. When his four years were nearly up he decided to come back and set up the SDP. He proposed to step on the plane and soar into the sky.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me which provision in the motion he is speaking about.
  Mr. Skinner: I am making a fair point. What would have happened if at that time Roy Jenkins had wanted to come back as a Member of the House, before he was elected as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, with some kind of pseudo Common Market title that is not in the motion? Could he have been a Member? Roy Jenkins was President of the Commission and not a Member of the European Parliament like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, who beavered away trying to get a classless society in the Common Market. I have an idea that Jenkins was not up to that. He was busy supping all the claret he could find in the Common Market. There were no wine lakes when he was there.
  Let us suppose that somebody stuck up there in the Common Market said, "I have read this document and I do not think that I am disqualified. I think that I will go back there when there is a vacancy, any old vacancy." [Interruption.] Leon Brittan has almost admitted that he is on his way back. He is making a big name for himself in the Common Market—at least, he thinks he is. He has been commenting on all the Conservative ballots in recent weeks. He has never been on British television and it is pretty clear that he is up to something.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of this has anything to do with the motion.
  Mr. Skinner: The motion is comprehensive. It includes all the categories of people who would have to pass a test before they were elected to Parliament. Is it final? Does it include all the categories?
  The Common Market is causing a number of ripples right across the political scene. Some people might have their eyes set on this place. Some people already want to wander in and out of the Common Market corridors ad nauseam. Who knows, they might want to take their seat here. Therefore, we must scrutinise this motion carefully.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were a Member of this House in 1974. I referred earlier to mistakes being made. In 1974, after the election of the Labour Government——
  Mr. John M. Taylor (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): That was a mistake.
  Mr. Skinner: It was not a mistake. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) caused it. He decided that he wanted a bigger majority than he had and he got belted.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman should remember that it was only after June 1975, perhaps following our change of leader, that the people started throwing out Labour Members of Parliament in the by-elections and the Labour Government had to make an alliance with Lord Jenkins and his party——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the motion before the House.
  Mr. Skinner: I want to prevent mistakes being made, but I must answer the hon. Gentleman. It was not losing by-elections that caused the trouble. A fellow called Stonehouse was our majority, and he went missing. We were searching for him for 12 months. Our majority went on that beach. At least we thought it was on a beach. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were a Minister, and you were having to exist from night to night on the basis of finding Members of Parliament. Then we had the Social and Democratic party mob to contend with. At that time they were planning to leave, but we did not know exactly when they would. It was not just by-elections that caused the problem.
  In 1974, not long after the election, I saw a pretty obscure title on the annunciator at 3.30 in the morning and I wondered what it was all about. The Leader of the House, Ted Short, was moving retrospective legislation. A Liberal, who is now Lord Winstanley, then the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, had been elected here despite being debarred because he was serving as a doctor on a medical appeals tribunal.
  Both Front-Bench spokesmen—this is what happens in this place—made an agreement to sneak the change through in the early hours of the morning under an obscure title so that no one would notice and Mr. Winstanley could come back as a Member of Parliament without his leaving the building. They sent him out the Chamber, just in case. That is as far as he went. Hon. Members get thrown out of the Chamber for saying something out of place, but he was just asked to stand outside while the measure was slipped through. In the space of half an hour, after contributions from the Front-Bench spokesmen and myself, the Government managed to introduce retrospective legislation so that that hon. Member could keep his seat.
  That brings me back to what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said. Little did I realise when I was opposing that motion that that Member's vote was needed later. It was not 1975. It was 1976, after the International Monetary Fund business when some of us had refused to support the various efforts of the Government at that time. I shall not go too far down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that your heart is aching for the past and those great moments when we lived from day to day with people being shunted into the Lobby after being brought here. It is an important matter. When people stand for election, they should make sure that they are qualified to do so. In my view, we do not have a comprehensive picture. Let us scour the Common Market to ensure that the people there who want to pinch places in this House cannot do so outside the limits of this place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

  Additional entry
  1. The following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place:—
  The Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland.

  Entries omitted
  2. The following entries shall he omitted:—

  The General Practice Finance Corporation.

  The entry beginning 'A Medical Appeal Tribunal'.

  The New Towns Staff Commission.

  The Police Complaints Board for Northern Ireland.

  The Traffic Commissioners for any area (including the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Traffic Area).

  The Tribunal established under Part II of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

  The University Grants Committee.

  Other amendments
  3.—(1) In the entry 'The National Development Team for Mentally Handicapped People', for 'Mentally Handicapped People' there shall be substituted 'People with a Mental Handicap'.
  (2) For the entry 'The Northern Ireland Electricity Service' there shall be substituted the following entry:—
  Northern Ireland Electricity.

PART III OF SCHEDULE I

  Additional entries
  4. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

  Additional Commissioner of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.

  Chairman of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.

  Chairman of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Chairman of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.

  Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Laganside Corporation.

  Chairman of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

  Chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board.

  Chairman of a special health and social services agency established under Article 3 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Special Agencies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990.

  Chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  Chairman of the Training, Enterprise and Education Advisory Group for Wales.

  Chief executive of the Simpler Trade Procedures Board.

  Director of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited.

  Director of Citybus Limited.

  Director of Flexibus Limited.

  Director of Northern Ireland Airports Limited.

  Director of Northern Ireland Railways Company Limited.

  Director of Nuclear Electric p.l.c.

  Director of Scottish Nuclear Limited.

  Director of Ulsterbus Limited.

  Member of a Medical Appeal Tribunal appointed under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 12 to the Social Security Act 1975.

  Member of a Medical Appeal Tribunal for Northern Ireland appointed under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 12 to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975.

  Member of the panel of chairmen for Social Security Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed under section 97(2D)(a) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975, or of the panel of chairmen for Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed under paragraph 2(4)(a) of Schedule 12 to that Act.

  Member of the staff of the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

  Person appointed under section 3(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to carry out functions relating to the political restriction of posts under local authorities, within the meaning of Part
  924
  I of that Act.

  Social fund Commissioner.

  Traffic Commissioner for any area constituted for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.

  Entries omitted
  5. The following entries shall be omitted:—

  The entry beginning 'Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils'.

  The entry beginning 'Chairman of either of the Consultative Councils'.

  Chairman of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas.

  Chairman in receipt of remuneration of the Electricity Consumers' Council.

  Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Scotland.

  Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Wales.

  Chairman of the Board of the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education.

  Chairman of the National Seed Development Organisation Limited.

  Chairman of the Northern Ireland Staffs Council for the Health and Social Services.

  Chairman or Chief Executive of the Simplification of International Trade Procedures Board.

  Chairman of the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland.

  The entry beginning 'The Commissioner appointed'.

  Director of the British Petroleum Company p.l.c. nominated by a Minister of the Crown or government department.

  Director of Harland and Wolff p.l.c.

  Director of Royal Ordnance p.l.c.

  Director of S. B. (Realisations) p.l.c. nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.

  Director of Short Brothers p.l.c.

  Director of the successor company (within the meaning of the Airports Act 1986) being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

  Director of the successor company (within the meaning of the Gas Act 1986), being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

  General Manager or Secretary of the Scottish Special Housing Association.

  Member of a panel appointed under section 97(2D)(a) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 of persons eligible to act as chairmen of Social Security Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.

  Member of the Trinity House Lighthouse Board nominated by the Secretary of State.

  Other amendments
  6.—(1) In the entry beginning 'Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Dental Estimates Board', for 'Estimates' there shall be substituted 'Practice'.
  (2) In the entry beginning 'Chairman of the Scottish Dental Estimates Board', for 'Estimates' there shall be substituted 'Practice'.
  (3) In the entry 'Chairman of the tribunal constituted under section 463 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970', for '463' and '1970' there shall be substituted '706' and '1988' respectively.
  (4) In the entry beginning 'Chairman of the United Kingdom Central Council', the words from 'if appointed' onwards shall be omitted.
  (5) In the entry 'Director of British Nuclear Fuels Limited', for 'Limited' there shall be substituted 'p.l.c.'.
  (6) In the entry beginning 'Director of any company in receipt of financial assistance', the words from 'the Distribution of Industry Act 1945' to '1967,' shall be omitted.
  (7) For the entry 'Member of a Wages Council or Central Co-ordinating Committee appointed under paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2 to the Wages Councils (Northern Ireland) Order 1982' there shall be substituted the following entry:—
  Member of a Wages Council appointed under paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 2 to the Wages (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

  PART IV OF SCHEDULE I
  7. In the first column, for the entry 'Her Majesty's Commissioner of Lieutenancy in the City of London' there shall be substituted the following entry:—
  Member of Her Majesty's Commission of Lieutenancy for the City of London.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That—
  (1) [this House do meet on Thursday 20th December at half-past Nine o'clock;
  (2) [notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and
  (3) at Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the provisions of paragraph (4) and (5) of the Order of 8th November relating to Business of the House shall have effect with the following modifications:
  Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 8th and 15th March, 10th and 17th May, 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th June, and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on 20th and 27th February, 24th April, 1st, 15th and 22nd May, 5th and 12th June.
  On Monday 4th February and Monday 22nd April, Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business until Seven o'clock and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Thursday 17th January and Wednesday 27th March.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

  Narcolepsy (Attendance Allowance)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  11.55 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome this opportunity to initiate the Adjournment debate in my name, and to raise the problems faced by sufferers from narcolepsy who want to obtain an attendance allowance.
  There are 20,000 narcolepsy sufferers in the United Kingdom, many of whom experience great difficulty in securing an attendance allowance, mainly because of the failure of the medical profession in certain quarters to identify their problem. Narcolepsy is a lifelong disorder that may entail serious disablement. No cure is known, and the cause is suspected to be a central nervous system defect—though the exact mechanism is not clearly understood. There is no evidence of a psychological cause.
  The symptoms usually appear independently of one another. They are typically rather mild to start with, but gradually increase in severity over a period of years. The development and severity of the symptoms are very variable in different individuals. The condition often leads in later life to an inability to work and to early retirement.
  The two primary symptoms of narcolepsy are excessive daytime sleeping and cataplexy. In severe cases, either can result in severe disability. The other symptoms appear less frequently, and usually present no really major problems —though one of them, hallucinations, is common in many cases.
  Excessive daytime sleepiness is usually the first symptom to be noticed. It obviously affects the individual's ability to work, and where he or she is employed in work that demands deep concentration their performance is greatly affected. That can lead to employment problems. Pathological sleepiness is evident every day, though its intensity varies. The sufferer nay find only the more severe episodes troublesome. Over 24 hours, the total time spent sleeping is usually no more than normal. The abnormality lies in the individual's continuous susceptability to sleepiness or to falling asleep, and the circumstances in which that occurs.
  Cataplexy, the other primary symptom, is a brief but sudden loss of voluntary muscle control, usually triggered by emotions such as those associated with laughter, anger, elation, or surprise. The severity and extent of a cataplectic attack can vary from a fleeting sensation of weakness extending more or less throughout the body to the noticeable involvement of several muscle groups or to a state of absolute powerlessness involving almost all the voluntary muscles. During an attack, vision may become blurred, and speech difficult or impossible. Sagging of the jaw and tilting of the head are common, and are frequently accompanied by a slight buckling of the knees.
  Sometimes an attack will be marked by convulsive jerking, caused by the muscles alternating rapidly between limpness and partial control. It is not unusual for a sufferer —for example, a woman out shopping—to collapse in a heap on the floor. The length of these attacks varies from a few seconds to half an hour.
  Upon first appearance, cataplectic attacks are mild and infrequent. They increase in severity and frequency up to a level which varies from person to person. Some people

  927
  suffer only one or two attacks a year, whereas others have hundreds a day and a typical attack may last for up to 30 minutes.
  It is the people who suffer very seriously from this unfortunate disability about whom I am most concerned. Many of them cannot be left on their own. They often need attention day and night. When making applications for attendance allowance, they have come up against problems put forward by the medical profession.
  The Narcolepsy Association (United Kingdom), UKAN, feels that the common factor in the problems facing many sufferers who try to obtain attendance allowance is the ignorance of many general practitioners. In most cases the GP's first reaction to the applicant's statement is "Narcolepsy—what on earth is that?". As the practitioners consulted by the Department of Social Security are often not familiar with the syndrome, they do not realise that a patient, who appears to have impaired physical and mental functions, suffers from the disorder and can be severely handicapped.
  I refer the House to the views of David Parkes, professor of clinical neurology at King's College hospital. In an article in The Guardian on 21 September 1990, he said:
  " The condition is really disabling, maybe even more so than epilepsy. It is a lifelong chronic problem. Patients are sleeping their life away. Attacks of cataplexy—sudden muscular weakness triggered by excitement such as anger or laughter—which also occur can result in broken bones and self injury."
  I am aware of a number of cases in which there have been personal injuries to the sufferer.
  Employers, faced with an applicant who is not only in his late forties, but who also falls asleep, suffers from cataplectic fits in the office and displays automatic behaviour, are naturally extremely reluctant to engage him. In practical terms, the narcoleptic, in full possession
  of his innate mental and physical powers, is often unemployable.
  On account of a lack of knowledge, many narcoleptics try unsuccessfully for years to have their disorder diagnosed. I know of many cases, details of which I can pass to my hon. Friend the Minister, which have been diagnosed by a number of doctors. It is only by good fortune, or with the help of the Narcolepsy Association, that they have managed to consult a doctor who understands the problem.
  GPs often made comments such as, "This is what I call Billy Bunter syndrome"; "All you have to do is to pull yourself together"; or even, "There is only one thing I can
  prescribe for that"—usually psychotropic medication—"and I do not believe in it." Often the lack of knowledge extends to consultant neurologists of which there are no more than half a dozen in the United Kingdom whose names can be given to a patient's GP with any confidence.
  The worst outcome is referral to a psychiatrist, who will assume that the patient's disorder is mental and not neurological and give quite unsuitable treatment. It is not uncommon for narcoleptics to be prescribed tranquillisers and sleeping pills. Such medication, and the more extreme forms of therapy such as electric shock treatment, make the condition worse. Unfortunately, I am aware of examples in which a drug called Ritalin, which helps narcoleptics, has been prescribed and, because the patient's level of activity has been raised so high, they have
  928
  then been prescribed Mogadon in the evening, which has the opposite effect. That leaves them on a sort of rollercoaster that does not help the condition.
  The major problem facing a narcolepsy sufferer in securing a diagnosis is general practitioners' lack of knowledge. The case that came to my attention was that of Mrs. Lloyd. She is a constituent of mine and her case is typical of the problems faced by narcolepsy sufferers. She first applied for attendance allowance in 1987 and I first wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister in December 1987 requesting that he assist me in speeding up the process. Since then it has been subject to one appeal after another. It has now arrived on the doorstep of the social security Commissioner who has recently made a decision.
  Mrs. Lloyd is a severe sufferer. Her husband, John, has been to see me on a number of occasions. He is a dedicated man who has suffered a heart attack and who, in his old age, is looking after his 65-year-old wife. He is alert to every nuance of his wife's breathing. A slight jerk of her body has him tearing out of bed to be at her side. He lies at night, dozing, just watching her in case she suffers an attack. She suffers from sleep attacks in which she stops breathing and he has to be on hand to ensure that she is revived. He lives with that from day to day. Naturally, the anxiety that it is causing him is terrific.
  According to the Attendance Allowance Board, that lady, who is suffering from such a debilitating problem, does not qualify for day or night attendance allowance. As a consequence, the family manages as best it can without something that many of us would regard as essential.
  Recently, Mr. Rice, the social security Commissioner, said that two questions should be asked in relation to each sufferer from narcolepsy and attendance allowances generally. First, one should ask whether there is any danger to the applicant; and, secondly, whether that danger could be averted by supervision. In Mrs. Lloyd's case, Mr. Rice has directed that the case should go back Ito the Attendance Allowance Board to be reconsidered, but this is nearly three and a half years after the original application. As far as I can see in Mrs. Lloyd's case, the answer to both Mr. Rice's questions is, yes.
  I could go on at length about a number of cases and I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of many of them. They have come to my attention from all over the country. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that there are many people suffering from narcolepsy who need day and night attendance from relatives to help to keep them alive. The main problem against which we are fighting is ignorance in the medical profession and, often, doctors' unwillingness to diagnose what is an important problem.
  I trust that by bringing this problem to the Houses attention I will widen awareness of it and, I hope, help sufferers such as Mrs. Lloyd and many others.
  11.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on having this subject accepted for an Adjournment debate. I understand that this is the first time that he has been in this situation, and it is certainly a first time here for me tonight.
  The Government are fully committed to giving as much support as they can to helping severely disabled people.

  929
  However, merely to have a disease of whatever sort is not in itself a passport to benefits or to attendance allowance. As my hon. Friend so rightly said, what is relevant is the satisfactory answer to the question whether the effects of the disease are such as to justify supervision.
  The benefit that my hon. Friend raised tonight, and which therefore most concerns us, is attendance allowance. It may help if I remind the House of the background to the allowance. It was introduced in 1971 as a single, flat-rate benefit for people who need a lot of attention or supervision both by day and by night. A separate, lower rate was introduced two years later for those who satisfy the conditions only either by day or by night.
  Decisions on whether the medical criteria are satisfied are made by the Attendance Allowance Board or, more commonly, by delegated medical practitioners—generally referred to as DMPs—acting on its behalf. In reaching their decision, DMPs have regard to a full report of the claimant's condition and attendance needs which has been completed by another doctor who has visited the claimant for that purpose. The claimant is invited to have a carer present at this visit and any relevant points made by the claimant or by the carer are included in the report.
  In some cases, the DMP finds it necessary to obtain further medical evidence from a specialist who has dealt with the case or from the claimant's own general practitioner. The claimant can also submit any other evidence that he or she thinks may be relevant. The DMPs follow published comprehensive guidance issued by the Attendance Allowance Board. The board consists of experts in different areas of medicine and others who have a professional interest in people with disabilities.
  Attendance allowance is a benefit aimed at helping people to meet the extra costs generally associated with severe disabilities. Its purpose is to provide a broad level of support, as of right, to many disabled people—almost 800,000 at present. It is not related to any particular costs or disablement, but focuses on the care needs arising from the claimant's condition.
  This is an essential principle on which the structure of the benefit is based. It is also the element which enables attendance allowance to be applied quickly to new conditions and illnesses, whatever their nature, as they are identified. To attempt to regulate for every type of disablement or medical condition which might give rise to entitlement to attendance allowance would be bound to lead to a very complex scheme. It would also be bound to lead to delays such as the delay that my hon. Friend has rightly deplored. For that reason, I am convinced that it would not be appropriate simply to make narcolepsy in itself a sufficient condition for attendance allowance.
  I can understand the sentiments which clearly underlie my hon. Friend's concern to ensure that specific illnesses should passport people into attendance allowance. However, under the present rules, people suffering from any condition have to establish their entitlement to attendance allowance if they have sufficient care needs as a result of that condition. The effects of different conditions vary enormously and it does not always follow that a particular one will generate the same level of care needs.
  Narcolepsy is a generic term which covers, as my hon. Friend rightly said, narcolepsy, catalepsy and sleep
  930
  paralysis. While they can be very alarming to the person concerned and to others with them, those conditions in themselves do not put the life of the person concerned in danger. That must be taken into account in determining the need for supervision.
  People suffering from narcolepsy may fall asleep in monotonous conditions, in conditions of extreme warmth, when they are watching television, when they are naturally tired, when they have had a heavy meal or in any one of the conditions in which people would normally feel the desire to sleep. However, most people do not suddenly suffer from an overwhelming compulsion to sleep when engaged in a positive activity such as walking downstairs or filling a teapot with hot water. The necessity of establishing that a narcoleptic is a danger to himself or herself is therefore an essential ingredient in trying to obtain attendance allowance. It is not sufficient simply to suffer from a low resistance to sleep, which is the essence of the condition of narcolepsy.
  I understand that it is very rare for persons with narcolepsy to sustain serious injury as a result of an attack or to harm others. People who are prone to abrupt sleep attacks should obviously consider whether it is wise to drive or to pursue monotonous occupations which put them at risk. However, they would be unlikely to qualify for attendance allowance which requires round-the-clock supervision on those grounds alone. They would need to show that the particular manifestations of their form of narcolepsy created danger.
  My hon. Friend was right to state that narcolepsy is not a well-publicised condition. He was right also to state that it is estimated that about 20,000 people in the population suffer from it. Symptoms usually begin in adolescence and there is no question of children getting into difficulties because they are unaware of their low resistance to sleep. For most sufferers the symptoms are not extreme, and to exempt all those suffering from narcolepsy from the need to satisfy the attendance allowance criteria would be costly and also inequitable for people with other conditions, because many narcoleptics are unlikely to have supervision or care needs sufficient to justify payment of the allowance.
  Where to draw the line on eligibility is always one of our most difficult issues in social security. I am convinced that our present approach is right, especially as in representations that we have received disabled people have consistently said that we should concentrate on the effects that a disability has on a claimant's life rather than on the medical aspects of the disability.
  My hon. Friend mentioned a particular constituent of his who has narcolepsy. One cannot help but sympathise with that constituent and with the anxiety that her husband and family have suffered. That constituent has been refused attendance allowance at either rate on the ground that the medical criteria are not met. As I have explained, decisions on attendance allowance are for the Attendance Allowance Board and its delegates. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can intervene. However, the lady concerned has exercised her right of appeal to the social security Commissioner on a point of law rather then a medical point, and my hon. Friend was right to state that the Commissioner has recently remitted the case back to the board to examine it afresh. That is the correct way in which the constituent's dissatisfaction should be considered.
  I suspect that what I have said will not necessarily have satisfied my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I am sure that he

  931
  will be able to appreciate the reasons for not giving automatic entitlement to attendance allowance to people with specific medical conditions. Even very serious medical conditions do not lead to automatic qualification for attendance allowance. Each individual case must show that the effects are such that supervision is necessary, either all the time or for part of the time.
  The Government have made continued improvements in social security benefits for disabled people over the past 11 years. I welcome the presence in the Chamber of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). In his former incarnation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health and Social Security he paid tribute on many occasions, albeit en passant in various reports, to the measures taken by the Government over the past 11 years to try to make life better for the disabled.
  In 1979, 265,000 people received attendance allowance. Today, as I said earlier, nearly 800,000 receive it. It is estimated that by 1993–94 more than 1·1 million people will receive either the care component of the disability living allowance or attendance allowance. Overall, we have more than doubled expenditure on benefits for disabled people during the past 11 years. That is a record of our commitment and one about which we are, and have reason to be, justifiably proud.
  Inevitably, when new diseases are identified, it takes time for the medical profession fully to recognise the
  932
  effects. I do not doubt that some of the rather harsh words that my hon. Friend has spoken about medical practitioners are probably justified. It takes time for information to be disseminated. However, even if all those medical practitioners were to diagnose correctly all those coming to them for recommendations for allowances or for help with the condition and for prescriptions, having narcolepsy would not necessarily justify allowances and benefits for those patients. The slowness of some members of the medical profession to catch up with this is not having an effect on the rights of patients claiming attendance allowance. Even if severe narcolepsy were diagnosed, it would still be necessary for the sufferer to show that supervision would materially alleviate or prevent danger occurring as a result of those severe symptoms.
  If we are to use wisely the money that we are rightly spending on the disabled, we have to consider each case on its merits. Sympathetic as I am towards those who suffer from narcolepsy, which I recognise is a somewhat under-recognised condition, the system should be left alone. There is no such thing as an automatic passport to these allowances and that is how things should continue, as disabled people themselves agree.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY

  V7 Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the V7 light bulb; whether Her Majesty's Government will be taking any steps to promote its use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The V7 light bulb is an energy-efficient compact fluorescent lamp available in the United States and manufactured to operate at United States voltage levels. My Energy Efficiency Office has examined a range of similar commercially available lamps in the United Kingdom. Compact fluorescent lamps are now becoming generally available in high street shops and supermarkets. They use 75 to 80 per cent. less electricity and last eight times as long as normal light bulbs for which they are suitable as direct replacements. The electricity they save will more than cover their extra initial cost.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many separate individual applicants have applied for shares in the regional electricity companies of England and Wales.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many individuals have made applications for shares in one or more regional electricity company.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A total of 12·75 million applications have been made for shares in the 12 regional companies share offers. Precise figures are not available at this stage, but the number of application forms is estimated at over 5 million. This is the highest number for any privatisation.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate for each regional electricity company floated, what the breakdown is of(a) within franchise area individual shareholders, (b) outside franchise area individual shareholders and (c) institutional shareholders.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 December 1990, at column 300.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is yet in a position to state how many applications for shares in one or more regional electricity companies have been received from households involving more than one applicant.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated cost allocated for the use of the TRAP computer programme for the detection of illegal multiple share applications for shares in the electricity flotation.
  320
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The electricity fraud auditors have set up a number of sophisticated systems for the detection of multiple share applications. The costs will depend on the scale of the work required.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department's purchasing informa-tion system does not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. However, information on the Department's purchasing expenditure from 1986–87 is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  £'000

  Press advertising

  Television and radio advertising

  Other advertising and promotion

  Videos and sound cassettes2

  1989–90

  892

  0

  1,000

  120

  1988–89

  2,378

  4

  1,313

  184

  1987–88

  1,513

  0

  959

  44

  1986–87

  11,830

  17,519

  4,501

  62

  1985–86

  1,589

  2,212

  1

  49

  1Expenditure on other advertising and promotion is not available for 1985–86 on a comparable basis.

  2Includes expenditure on films as well as videos.

THE ARTS

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he. will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Renton
  My Department's accounting information system does not differentiate between the acquisition and commissioning of goods and services. The Office of Arts and Libraries administration vote totals £1,802,000 in 1990–91, of which about £150,000 will be spent on goods and services.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.
  321
  Mr. Renton
  There has been expenditure by my Department only on the category "other advertising and promotion". The details for the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1986–87

  Nil

  1987–88

  13,225

  1988–89

  6,785

  1989–90

  1,564

  1990–91

  658

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  University Staff
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement pursuant to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's letter, reference TEAH/614/1016 of 5 November to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, on his study of the report commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and AUT on recruitment and retention of university, academic and academic-related staff.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In agreeing appropriate pay levels for university academic and academic-related staff, the Government regard recruitment and retention as most important factors for consideration. The report referred to by the hon. Member will be taken into account in the context of the 1991 pay settlement. Our examination of the report has concluded that it does not appear to shed any significant new light on the question of staff outflows overseas.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the numbers of educational psychologists placed in schools with substantial ethnic minority populations who are able to speak the language of that minority for 1985 to 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The employment and deployment of educational psychologists is the responsibility of the individual local education authority.

  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has, for the last five years, on the number of ethnic minority pupils who have stayed on in school after the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Multi-faith Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will outline the ways in which multi-faith education is currently being promoted.

  Mr. Eggar
  Within the framework of the Education Reform Act, the precise content of religious education is a matter for local determination. The changes introduced by the ERA secure the place of Christianity within RE in 322
  schools, while taking account of the needs and aspirations of the many people who hold different beliefs. In county schools, RE must be provided in accordance with a locally agreed syllabus drawn up by a conference, convened for that purpose by the LEA and reflecting the principal religious traditions of the area. The ERA requires all new syllabuses to
  "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".

  Teachers (Language Training)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money has been spent in the past five years on the training of teachers in other languages; and if he will give the languages currently being studied by those teachers.

  Mr. Fallon
  Training costs for individual courses vary between institutions and details are not held centrally. The principal languages other than English being studied include French, German, Spanish, Italian, Welsh, Latin and Greek.

  Schools (Annual Grants)
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what, for each authority in which there is a grant-maintained school, is the average sum per pupil, in the primary or secondary phases, as appropriate, attributed in the calculations of annual maintenance grants to central services(a) for 1989–90 and (b) for 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is given in the table:

  Central costs component of annual maintenance grant for grant maintained schools

  Local education authority

  Per pupil amount (£) 1989–90

  Per pupil amount (£) 1990–91

  Barnet

  186

  251

  Bedfordshire

  203

  285

  Berkshire

  —

  247

  Birmingham

  257

  351

  Bolton

  163

  249

  Brent

  —

  380

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  273

  Cheshire

  241

  318

  Derbyshire

  —

  340

  Devon

  245

  389

  Dorset

  —

  245

  Dudley

  274

  354

  Gloucestershire

  —

  234

  Hertfordshire

  —

  225

  Hillingdon

  —

  374

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  661

  Kent

  166

  238

  Kirklees

  218

  268

  Lancashire

  217

  269

  Leicestershire

  —

  311

  Lincolnshire

  222

  190

  Liverpool

  315

  193

  Northamptonshire

  —

  242

  Shropshire

  —

  264

  Southwark

  —

  520

  Surrey

  —

  296

  Sutton

  243

  331

  Tameside

  193

  262

  Wolverhampton

  —

  323

  Notes:

  1. Figures are full-year equivalent for secondary schools. There

  323
  are currently no grant-maintained primary schools in operation.

  2. Apportionment of costs between school and local education authority level will have changed in some local education authorities between 1989–90 and 1990–91 as a result of the introduction on 1 April 1990 of financial delegation schemes for local management of schools.

  3. Figures for Avon, Brent and Hammersmith have yet to be finalised.

  Schools (Suspensions)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has, for the last 12 months, on the number of pupils expelled or suspended from primary and secondary schools, by ethnic origin.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Bilingual Teachers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of bilingual teachers appointed since 1985 by primary and secondary schools to bridge the language gap between teachers and students or parents.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested in not available centrally.

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements exist for the provision of an occupational health service for employees within his Department, stating(a) how many staff are employed to provide occupational health services, (b) how many of those staff are qualified nurses and (c) how many employees work in his Department in total.

  Mr. Eggar
  All civil service departments and agencies have access to the services of the civil service occupational health service which employs some 100 fully qualified occupational health professionals—doctors, nurses and hygiene and safety advisers. It operates via a network of regional offices throughout the United Kingdom. DES does not itself provide occupational health services. The Department currently employs some 2,600 staff.

  Food Research
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of the staff losses expected at the Institute of Food Research attributable to the withdrawal of Government funding from those projects designated as near market.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A total of 19 posts will be lost by the end of the financial year 1990–91, as a result of the withdrawal of Government funding for "near market" research in 1991–92.

  In addition, a further 24 posts will be lost during the same period, because of the realignment of existing Government commissions.

  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the amount of the special bonus paid by the Science and Engineering Research Council to its establishment officer in 1989.
  324
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under a scheme for Science and Engineering Research Council employees operative at the time, merit awards were made in February 1990 to the council's establishment officer and to a number of other staff. It is not normal practice to make public the value of payments to individual members of the Science and Engineering Research Council staff.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  Departmental purchasing information systems do not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. However, information on departmental purchasing expenditure from 1986–87 is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The expenditure figures for advertising and other promotional materials by this Department for the financial years 1986–87 to 1989–90 are provided in the table. Video and cassette costs cannot readily be disaggregated from other advertising and promotion costs. The 1990–91 figure is provisional.

  Year

  Press advertising

  Television

  Radio

  Other advertising and promotion

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  1986–87

  532·0

  Nil

  Nil

  533·0

  1987–88

  280·0

  Nil

  Nil

  1,459·0

  1988–89

  475·0

  Nil

  400

  1,156·0

  1989–90

  238·0

  Nil

  11·8

  1,150·0

  1990–91

  1,160·0

  1,100·0

  Nil

  2,115·0

  Education Resources
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to ensure that more resources are delegated to schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend is publishing today two draft circulars which will take forward our policies on local management of schools and on more open enrolment. My right hon. and learned Friend is determined to ensure that as much money as is reasonably possible is delegated to schools to manage themselves, and that parents are given the widest possible choice of school at primary as well as at secondary level. Copies of the two circulars are today being placed in the Library of the House.

  The draft circular on local management of schools will require LEAs, before 1 April 1993, to hand over to schools

  325
  at least 85 per cent. of the potential schools budget, and to determine 80 per cent. of school budgets on the basis of pupil numbers. The draft circular will also require, by 1 April 1994, the extension of delegated management to all small schools and to those special schools that are able and want to manage their own budgets.

  The two tables show, where the information has been provided, how each LEA currently performs against these criteria.

  1990–91 budgets: percentage of potential schools budget delegated to schools

  LEA3

  Percentage of PSB1 delegated to schools

  Total2 dis-cretionary exceptions as percentage of PSB

  Central administration as percentage of PSB

  1. Bolton

  89·10

  10·90

  2·02

  2. Berkshire

  87·68

  12·32

  2·71

  3. West Sussex

  87·49

  12·51

  1·95

  4. Sefton

  87·44

  12·56

  4·45

  5. Sunderland

  86·86

  13·14

  3·10

  6. Gloucestershire

  86·78

  13·22

  3·65

  7. Northumberland

  86·54

  13·46

  3·10

  8. Rotherham

  86·13

  13·87

  3·74

  9. Leeds

  86·12

  13·88

  3·87

  10. Bradford

  86·04

  13·96

  3·87

  II. Hampshire

  85·78

  14·22

  3·34

  12. Rochdale

  85·74

  14·26

  2·55

  13. Walsall

  85·72

  14·28

  3·37

  14. Suffolk

  85·66

  14·34

  2·75

  15. Surrey

  85·57

  14·43

  6·17

  16. Doncaster

  85·45

  14·55

  2·29

  17. Solihull

  85·31

  14·69

  2·49

  18. Warwickshire

  85·24

  14·76

  3·90

  19. Lincolnshire

  85·13

  14·87

  2·68

  20. Liverpool

  84·91

  15·09

  4·07

  21. Buckinghamshire

  84·88

  15·12

  4·58

  22. Kent

  84·87

  15·13

  3·79

  23. Northamptonshire

  84·74

  15·26

  3·69

  24. Staffordshire

  84·61

  15·39

  4·51

  25. Shropshire

  84·60

  15·40

  2·48

  26. Tameside

  84·40

  15·60

  2·47

  27. Trafford

  84·38

  15·62

  3·49

  28. Salford

  84·37

  15·63

  3·19

  29. Barnet

  84·36

  15·64

  5·07

  30. Cheshire

  84·31

  15·69

  5·15

  31. East Sussex

  84·09

  15·91

  2·42

  32. Essex

  84·03

  15·97

  4·11

  33. Bedfordshire

  84·02

  15·98

  3·91

  34. Dudley

  83·98

  16·02

  3·62

  35. Havering

  83·87

  16·13

  2·28

  36. South Tyneside

  83·76

  16·24

  4·20

  37. Brent

  83·63

  16·37

  4·82

  38. Cleveland

  83·63

  16·37

  5·56

  39. Norfolk

  83·62

  16·38

  4·05

  40. Cornwall

  83·57

  16·43

  3·72

  41. Sutton

  83·44

  16·56

  4·05

  42. Barnsley

  83·38

  16·62

  2·86

  43. Kirklees

  83·38

  16·62

  3·98

  44. Derbyshire

  83·37

  16·63

  2·96

  45. Gateshead

  83·29

  16·71

  3·01

  46. Wigan

  83·28

  16·72

  3·70

  47. St. Helens

  83·27

  16·73

  3·69

  48. Sandwell

  83·24

  16·76

  3·75

  49. Durham

  83·13

  16·87

  4·35

  50. Devon

  83·11

  16·89

  3·06

  51. Birmingham

  83·04

  16·96

  4·36

  52. Somerset

  82·91

  17·09

  3·58

  53. Wakefield

  82·87

  17·13

  2·98

  54. Nottinghamshire

  82·72

  17·28

  5·24

  55. Redbridge

  82·71

  17·29

  4·91

  56. Lancashire

  82·66

  17·34

  3·65

  57. North Yorkshire

  82·62

  17·38

  4·15

  58. Sheffield

  82·61

  17·39

  3·49

  59. Cumbria

  82·53

  17·47

  4·04

  60. Isle of Wight

  82·48

  17·52

  4·68

  61. Wiltshire

  82·35

  17·65

  3·92

  62. North Tyneside

  82·30

  17·70

  5·03

  326
  The draft circular on more open enrolment sets out our plans to extend that policy to all primary schools for intakes from autumn 1992. This will ensure that schools may not turn away any pupils while they have the space to take them, and so remove artificial limits on parental choice.
  327

  LEA2

  Percentage of PSB1 delegated to schools

  Total2 dis-cretionary exceptions as percentage of PSB

  Central administration as percentage of PSB

  63. Avon

  82·30

  17·70

  3·40

  64. Bury

  81·92

  18·08

  4·70

  65. Knowsley

  81·91

  18·09

  5·07

  66. Calderdale

  81·86

  18·14

  4·84

  67. Dorset

  81·85

  18·15

  4·71

  68. Wolverhampton

  81·77

  18·23

  5·26

  69. Humberside

  81·71

  18·29

  3·57

  70. Ealing

  81·66

  18·34

  6·33

  71. Oldham

  81·64

  18·36

  4·98

  72. Hounslow

  81·59

  18·41

  5·19

  73. Harrow

  81·52

  18·48

  5·76

  74. Enfield

  81·50

  18·50

  5·56

  75. Oxfordshire

  81·37

  18·63

  5·46

  76. Bexley

  81·33

  18·67

  4·61

  77. Coventry

  80·93

  19·07

  6·00

  78. Cambridgeshire

  80·75

  19·25

  4·82

  79. Bromley

  80·70

  19·30

  4·49

  80. Richmond

  79·98

  20·02

  6·91

  81. Merton

  79·79

  20·21

  7·86

  82. Newcastle

  79·75

  20·25

  6·12

  83. Haringey

  79·36

  20·64

  6·04

  84. Kingston

  78·46

  21·54

  7·09

  85. Barking

  77·98

  22·02

  8·91

  86. Westminster

  77·97

  22·03

  8·20

  AVERAGE

  83·75

  16·25

  5·26

  1 PSB = General Schools Budget minus mandatory exceptions, school meals, home to school transport and transitional exceptions.

  2 Column 2 is the percentage of PSB not delegated to schools ie 100 per cent. minus Column 1.

  Note: All 87 LEAs which introduced LMS in April 1990 were required to publish budget statements for 1990–91 under Section 42 of ERA. The table gives figures for 86 LEAs, Waltham Forest has not yet published its budget statement.

  1990–91 budgets: percentage of the aggregated schools budget1 allocated on the basis of pupil numbers and ages

  LEA2

  Percentage

  1. Redbridge

  89·30

  2. Lincolnshire

  87·27

  3. South Tyneside

  86·93

  4. Barking

  86·73

  5. Bolton

  85·73

  6. Dudley

  85·72

  7. Tameside

  85·57

  8. North Yorkshire

  85·51

  9. Northumberland

  85·49

  10. Bromley

  84·99

  11. Oldham

  84·77

  12. Bexley

  84·40

  13. Gateshead

  84·36

  14. Wigan

  84·35

  15. Westminster

  84·20

  16. Staffordshire

  84·00

  17. Harrow

  83·83

  18. Kent

  83·72

  19. Coventry

  83·52

  20. Sefton

  83·33

  21. Trafford

  83·28

  22. Gloucestershire

  83·22

  23. Barnsley

  82·80

  24. Devon

  82·64

  25. Suffolk

  82·57

  26. Cambridgeshire

  82·34

  27. Avon

  82·30

  28. Solihull

  82·29

  29. Northamptonshire

  82·19

  30. Calderdale

  82·17

  31. West Sussex

  82·13

  32. Humberside

  81·97

  33. Rotherham

  81·79

  34. Salford

  81·69

  35. Isle of Wight

  81·62

  36. Bury

  81·45

  37. Cleveland

  81·43

  38. Hounslow

  81·42

  328

  LEA2

  Percentage

  39. Wiltshire

  81·00

  40. Cornwall

  80·93

  41. Sunderland

  80·69

  42. Newcastle

  80·66

  43. Ealing

  80·62

  44. Durham

  80·40

  45. Sutton

  80·29

  46. Somerset

  79·99

  47. Warwickshire

  79·89

  48. Buckinghamshire

  79·73

  49. Berkshire

  79·68

  50. Enfield

  79·21

  51. Dorset

  79·03

  52. Leeds

  78·90

  53. Birmingham

  78·63

  54. Bradford

  78·51

  55. Merton

  78·36

  56. Haringey

  78·25

  57. Walsall

  78·19

  58. Kirklees

  78·17

  59. North Tyneside

  78·00

  60. Shropshire

  77·91

  61. Brent

  77·81

  62. Cheshire

  77·78

  63. East Sussex

  77·41

  64. Richmond

  77·26

  65. Sheffield

  77·19

  66. Essex

  77·05

  67. Bedfordshire

  77·00

  68. Kingston

  76·84

  69. Hampshire

  76·63

  70. Derbyshire

  76·04

  71. Norfolk

  75·99

  72. Cumbria

  75·62

  73. Oxfordshire

  75·61

  74. Doncaster

  75·38

  75. Havering

  75·36

  76. Wakefield

  75·29

  77. Barnet

  75·19

  78. Liverpool

  75·00

  329

  LEA2

  Percentage

  79. Rochdale

  75·00

  80. St. Helens

  75·00

  81. Knowsley

  75·00

  82. Wolverhampton

  75·00

  83. Sandwell

  74·94

  84. Surrey

  74·91

  1 ASB = Aggregated Schools Budget; the amount planned to be allocated through the LMS formula.

  2 The budget statements produced by Lancashire and Nottingham LEAs did not contain the relevant information. Waltham Forest has not yet published its budget statement.

  EC Education Ministers
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the outcome of the meeting of European Community Education Ministers on Thursday 6 December.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Education Council and of the EC Education Ministers meeting within the Council on 6 December. The Council and the Ministers meeting within the Council:— agreed a resolution inviting the Commission to report on the development of the EURYDICE information network,
  — invited the Commission to conduct a survey on current and planned school activities in the field of education against drug abuse and to report in the context of its report on the implementation of the resolution of 1988 on health education,
  — agreed a range of activities to promote co-operation between member states in the development of assessment systems in education,
  — discussed aspects of the development of professional and vocational higher education.

  The meeting was preceded by an informal discussion with the Polish and Hungarian Ministers of Education and the Czechoslovakian Vice-Minister for Education.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether any disciplinary action is proposed against Brigadier Patrick Cordingley in respect of public statements about potential casualties in the event of resort to a military option in the Gulf.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Iraq (Supergun)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments were consulted about the orders for Iraq placed in 1988 by Walter Somers and Forgemasters.

  The Prime Minister
  In the case of Walter Somers, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence were involved. For the licence application made by Sheffield Forgemasters only DTI was involved.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the representations he has had from staff of the Nature Conservancy Council in Peterborough and Huntingdon about the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: In my capacity as the Member for Huntingdon, I received several letters and other representations from constituents employed by the Nature Conservancy Council about the planned reorganisation of the council. I have responded to those representations.

  Science Policy
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to take the overall responsibility for science policy; if he proposes to chair the Advisory Council on Science and Technology and the Cabinet Committee on Science and Technology; and what arrangements he proposes to make for overall ministerial responsibility for science policy.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: My intention is to continue the arrangements set out in the White Paper, "Civil Research and Development" (CM 185) of July 1987. In particular there will be collective ministerial consideration, under my chairmanship, of science and technology policy and priorities and the provision of independent advice from the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST), chaired by Sir Robin Nicholson FRS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to arrange for the Order Paper to list the total number of questions entered in the ballot for each oral Question Time.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), at column 296.

WALES

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the date for a decision on the hospital closures proposed by South Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  With the exception of the William Nicholls home, for which further consultation does not end until 31 December, it is hoped that decisions will be issued shortly.

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements exist for the provision of an occupational health service for employees within his Department, stating(a) how many staff are employed to provide occupational health services, (b) how many of those staff are qualified nurses and (c) how many employees work in his Department in total.
  331
  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Office employs the Civil Service Occupational Health Service to provide this service for its 2,352 employees. It does not employ staff directly for this purpose.

  Agricultural Co-operatives
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support will be given to the organisation for the promotion of agricultural cooperatives in Wales in 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society does not receive any direct Government funds. One of the changes arising from the restructuring of Food From Britain's finances in 1988 was that the Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society would not, after March 1990, receive the annual subvention it had previously enjoyed. Food From Britain's new business plan emphasised project-based funding targeted at specific objectives. Consequently, Food From Britain will still consider funding the Welsh Agriculture Organisation Society, but only on a specific project basis.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure quality control and effective monitoring of the services provided as a result of the £150,000 funding for work on alcohol abuse announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at his Department on Drinkwise Day in June.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Arrangements for monitoring and evaluation of services are outlined in the guidance contained in WHC90(78) and WHC90(79) which were issued on 5 December 1990. Copies of both these circulars are in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons are classed as homeless in(a) Ceredigion and (b) Dyfed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Ninety-four persons in Ceredigion and 353 in Dyfed were accepted as homeless during the third quarter of 1990.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the provision of secure accommodation for 15 and 16-year-olds.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Our officials are currently conducting a review of secure child care, including secure accommodation, in Wales. They have sought and received views on the provision of secure accommodation for young people from the chief executives of the county councils in Wales; from the chief constables, chief probation officers, chief Crown prosecutors and clerks to the magistrates in the Principality; and from select voluntary organisations. In addition we have received a small number of letters from other interested parties, from members of the public and from right hon. and hon. Members. All representations received are being taken fully into account in the review.
  332
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he intends to announce to increase the amount of secure accommodation in Wales for youngsters of 15 and 16 years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier reply of today. All options for improvement in secure child care practice in Wales are being considered in the Department's review of this area. In particular, the review will assess need for secure accommodation and will consider how that need might be met in the future. We have asked for the review to be completed early in the new year.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Departmental information systems do not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. Information on departmental purchasing expenditure from 1986–87, however, is set out in the annual report of the central unit on purchasing, copies of which are available from the Library of the House.

  Health and Social Services Research
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) in cash terms and (b) deflated according to an appropriate index of higher education pay and prices the spending on health and personal social services research in each year from 1979 to the most recent year which his Department has funded in universities, polytechnics and other related institutions.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Funding for health and personal social services research is largely provided under the joint England and Wales health and personal social services research programme. Spending on this programme in 1989–90, the latest year for which outturn figures are available, was £15·4 million.

  Information for earlier years is available in the Cabinet Office annual review of Government-funded research and development.

  Some additional funding for health research in Wales is provided directly by the Welsh Office. Spending in 1989–90, the latest year for which outturn figures are available, amounted to £518,000. Information for earlier years is available in the appropriation accounts.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television arid radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Welsh Office expenditure on advertising and other promotional activity for the past five financial years is shown in the following table:
  333

  Year

  Press advertising £

  Television advertising £

  Other advertising advertising and promotion £

  1985–86

  31,000

  Nil

  92,000

  1986–87

  49,000

  27,000

  331,000

  1987–88

  191,000

  39,000

  615,000

  1988–89

  112,000

  64,000

  1,105,000

  1989–90

  354,000

  57,000

  1,758,000

  Expenditure for promotion videos and sound cassettes is contained within the amounts given for other advertising and promotion as records do not allow these elements to be quantified separately.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of resources will be provided for the Countryside Council for Wales in the 1991–92 financial year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The proposed provision for the Countryside Council for Wales in 1991–92 is £14,554,000. This will enable the new body to undertake a comprehensive and balanced programme of work in discharge of all its functions. It fully meets the assurances I have previously given that the council will be adequately resourced.

  Soviet Union (Food Aid)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to launch a food aid package on behalf of the people of Wales to the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer Monday 10 December]: This is a matter which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would consider sympathetically if any such request for assistance were received from the Soviet Union.

  Transport
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase transport expenditure in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on planned expenditure for 1991–92 will be set out in the Welsh Office departmental report 1991 to be published early in the new year.

  Epileptics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the work with epileptics and their families in parts of north Wales, undertaken with support from the Mersey Region Epilepsy Association.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend and I are aware that a number of voluntary bodies, including the Mersey Region Epilepsy Association, make a valued contribution to the development and provision of services.

  Health and Personal Social Services
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has reached a decision about the allocation of resources for health and personal social services in Wales in 1991–92.
  334
  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval, I have decided on the allocation. I shall place a summary of my proposals in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Incomes
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the average post-tax income of the bottom 2 per cent. of income tax payers in each financial year since 1979–80;

  (2) what was the average post-tax income of the top 2 per cent. of income tax payers in each financial year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates are given in the table for 1979–80, and 1990–91. Information for other years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All estimates of income are based on information reported to tax offices and collected through the annual surveys of personal incomes. For 1979–80 the figure excludes employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source. The figures for 1979–80 represent the average income of single people or married couples; for 1990–91 the figure relates to individuals following the change to independent taxation. The figures for 1990–91 are based on projections of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  I regret that reliable estimates for the bottom 2 per cent. of taxpayers are not available. The table therefore shows figures for the bottom 5 per cent.

  Average post-tax income (£)

  1979–801

  1990–912

  Bottom 5 per cent.

  1,800

  4,300

  Top 2 per cent.

  15,100

  51,800

  Average tax paid (£)

  1979–801

  1990–912

  Bottom 5 per cent.

  40

  60

  Top 2 per cent.

  8,200

  23,500

  1 For single people and married couples.

  2 For individuals.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the experience of France and Italy in the European monetary system since 1979 so far as employment in manufacturing is concerned; and if he will publish a table showing the numbers employed in manufacturing in Germany, France and Italy each year since 1979 and at the latest available date together with the percentage increase since 1979 and 1985, respectively.

  Mr. Maples
  Data for manufacturing employment in France, Germany and Italy are published by the OECD in "Labour Force Statistics 1968–88".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the experience of the original EC Six in the European monetary system since 1979 so far as the rate of economic
  335
  growth is concerned; and if he will publish a table showing for each of the six the average rate of growth since 1979 as a percentage of the rate of growth in (i) the decade ending in 1973 and (ii) in the period in which the currency snake was in operation.

  Mr. Maples
  Data for GDP of the original members of the European Community are published by the OECD in "National Accounts 1960–88" and in "Main Economic Indicators".

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements exist for the provision of an occupational health service for employees within his Department, stating(a) how many staff are employed to provide occupational health services, (b) how many of those staff are qualified nurses and (c) how many employees work in his Department in total.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  All civil service departments and agencies have access to the services of the civil service occupational health service which employs some 100 fully qualified occupational health professionals—cloctors, nurses and hygiene and safety advisers. It operates via a network of regional offices throughout the United Kingdom. The Treasury employs about 3,150 staff who have access to three welfare staff and 32 first-aiders in additional to CSOHS services.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change in Treasury income during the financial year 1991–92 resulting from(a) increasing all personal allowances in line with the rise in average earnings and (b) increasing the threshold for the higher rate of income tax in line with earnings rather than prices.

  Mr. Maude
  At 1991–92 levels of income the estimated tax yield resulting from indexation in line with earnings compared with price indexation are as shown in the table. The estimates are based on the illustrative rate of price indexation of 10·25 per cent. and the working assumption of an 8·5 per cent. increase in average earnings between 1990–91 and 1991–92 used in the autumn statement 1990.

  £ million

  Yield in a full year

  Yield in 1991–92

  Personal allowances

  450

  340

  Threshold for higher rate

  120

  70

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Departmental purchasing information systems do not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. However, information on departmental purchasing expenditure from 1986–87 is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Benefits in Kind
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers get benefits in kind; and what is their average income.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: It is estimated that in 1990–91 2·77 million taxpayers receive taxable benefits in kind and that their average earnings, including the taxable value of the benefits, are £23,000. These estimates are based on projections from data relating to 1987–88 and are provisional.

  Upper Earnings Limit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people who pay tax are below the upper earnings limit for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: It is estimated that in 1991–92 there will be about 19·5 million taxpayers in employment and self-employment aged under 65 with earned income below £20,280, the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions purposes.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Syria
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Syrian Government concerning human rights in that country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 4 December 1990.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the complete removal of land-based short-range nuclear weapons in Europe through future negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The objectives of negotiations on short-range nuclear forces in Europe remain subject to discussion within the NATO alliance.

  Missile Technology Control
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the transfer of items from category I to category II of the missile technology control regime, and on the application of more stringent inspection rights to ensure end-use compliance under the terms of the regime.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In collaboration with our partners we keep the missile technology and control regime equipment and technology annex under constant review. Ensuring end-use compliance is the responsibility of individual supplying Governments in co-operation with the receiving Government. The United Kingdom is prepared to consider on-site inspection where appropriate.

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements exist for the provision of an occupational health service,
  337
  for employees within his Department, stating (a) how many staff are employed to provide occupational health services, (b) how many of those staff are qualified nurses and (c) how many employees work in his Department in total.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All civil service departments and agencies have access to the services of the civil service occupational health service, which employs some 100 fully qualified occupational health professionals—doctors, nurses and hygiene and safety advisers. It operates via a network of regional offices throughout the United Kingdom.

  In addition, employees of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration (and some British Council employees overseas) benefit from a contractual arrangement with St. Thomas's hospital, which provides advice on occupational health matters as well as a wider health care service.

  The St. Thomas's implant in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consists of three full-time medical advisers, two part-time medical advisers, three full-time occupational nursing sisters, two part-time occupational nursing sisters and one health promotion adviser. In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employs a full-time staff counsellor.

  The total number of staff in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office including the Overseas Development Administration at the beginning of November 1990 was 8,044.

  Western Sahara
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what military, financial and logistical assistance Her Majesty's Government are planning to make available for the United Nations plan for the western Sahara recently put before the United Nations Security Council by the Secretary-General.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Secretary-General has not yet formally submitted to the Security Council his definitive report on United Nations involvement in the western Sahara. Until he does, we will not be in a position to take any decision on precisely what support we will be able to offer although as a permanent member we shall, of course, be closely involved.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the right of signatories to the chemical weapons convention to retain a percentage of their stockpile of chemical weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 15 January 1990.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which European Community programmes and legislation apply to Gibraltar.
  338
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The provisions of the EC treaties apply to Gibraltar. However, under the arrangements agreed on the United Kingdom's accession to the Community, the common agricultural policy and Community rules on VAT do not apply to Gibraltar. Gibraltar is outside the Community's customs territory and the rules on free movement of goods do not apply.

  Antarctic Treaty (Chile Meeting)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals for environmental protection have been tabled at the meeting of Antarctic treaty parties in Chile; and which of these proposals provides the basis on which the meeting is proceeding.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following draft proposals were tabled at the meeting of Antarctic treaty parties, which ended in Chile on 6 December:

  (i) United Kingdom environment protocol

  (ii) New Zealand environmental protocol

  (iii) Australian/French conservation convention

  (iv) United States of America environmental protocol

  All these proposals contributed to the draft protocol which was accepted at the end of the meeting as a basis for further discussion.

  The Gulf (Hostages)
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is being given by his Department to relatives of hostages in Iraq and Kuwait in relation to their visiting their hostage relatives.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Saddam Hussein announced on 6 December that all foreign nationals were allowed to leave Iraq. We are arranging for the vast majority to do so. There is therefore no need for families to visit Baghdad.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in arranging for parcels to be sent to hostages in Iraq and Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British Red Cross is already packing parcels. They will be dispatched on 19 December if there is still a need for them.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) written and (b) oral questions he has answered (1) last Session and (2) to date in the current Session on (i) the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, (ii) nuclear weapons testing and a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and (iii) nuclear export controls.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of questions answered is as follows:

  Session

  Written

  Oral

  1989–90

  (i)

  164

  3

  (ii)

  18

  —

  (iii)

  5

  —

  1990–91

  339

  Session

  Written

  Oral

  (i)

  7

  —

  (ii)

  4

  —

  (iii)

  —

  —

  Iraqi Nuclear Facilities
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a report from the United Kingdom permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on the reliability of the report of the recently conducted IAEA safeguards inspection of Iraqi nuclear facilities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No; we have confidence in the IAEA's safeguards inspection procedures.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments have been made direct to political parties or organisations from know-how funds or otherwise in the countries of eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union and the area formerly known as the German Democratic Republic; what was the size of each such payment and the organisation benefiting; and what was the education and training purpose of the grants.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been no direct payments to political parties or organisations in east and central Europe or the Soviet Union from the know-how funds or other Foreign and Commonwealth Office sources.

  China
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of the People's Republic of China regarding human rights in China, with particular reference to religious activities.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office raised the subject of human rights with the visiting Chinese Vice Foreign Minister on 21 November, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in his meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister in New York on 28 September. My hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office specifically mentioned religious activities when expressing our concern on this issue to the Chinese authorities during his visit to China in July.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on advertising and other pro-motional material for the years 1985–86 to 1989–90 is as follows:340

  FCO Diplomatic Wing £

  FCO ODA Wing £

  1985–86

  161,000

  271,000

  1986–87

  336,000

  228,000

  1987–88

  195,000

  351,000

  1988–89

  289,000

  330,000

  1989–90

  329,000

  530,000

  A disaggregation of these figures to identify the medium used is not available.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Departmental purchasing information systems do not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. However, information on departmental purchasing expenditure from 1986–87 is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Malawi
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to monitor the observance of human rights in Malawi.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We regularly raise reports of human rights violations with the Malawian authorities and monitor subsequent progress.

  Africa
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Africa Watch about linking future economic assistance to African countries with steps by them to end abuses of human rights.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We received representations from Africa Watch on Kenya in this context, to which my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office replied. The Secretary of State has today received a further representation from Africa Watch, to which we will reply as soon as possible.

TRANSPORT

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements exist for the provision of an occupational health service for employees within his Department; and(a) how many staff are employed to provide occupational health services, (b) how many of those staff are qualified nurses and (c) how many employees work in his Department in total.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department of Transport, in common with all civil service departments, has access to the services of the civil service occupational health service
  341
  (CSOHS), which employs some 100 fully qualified occupational health professionals—doctors, nurses and hygiene and safety advisers. The CSOHS operates via a network of regional offices throughout the United Kingdom and also provides on-site medical advice to departments.

  The Department of Transport employs 16,700 staff.

  Defective Eyesight
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many candidates over the last five years failed the Department of Transport driving test due to defective eyesight; and if he will express the figures as a percentage of all failures and as a percentage of all candidates.

  Mr. Chope
  I am asking the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the method of conducting the eyesight check during the Department of Transport driving test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no plans to do so. The present number plate test is a simple, cheap and effective test which can also be carried out by drivers themselves and by the police at the roadside. The College of Ophthalmologists and the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention at the Royal College of Surgeons fully endorse the test.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to introduce regular eyesight checks for drivers after they have passed the Department of Transport driving test.

  Mr. Chope
  None. It is the responsibility of all drivers to ensure that they continue to meet the eyesight standard for driving and to notify DVLA of any deterioration in their eyesight which might affect their ability to drive safely.

  Heathrow-US Air Route
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of airlines which fly from Heathrow airport to the United States of America.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Under the terms of the United Kingdom—United States air services agreement British Airways, Pan American World Airways and Trans World Airlines are permitted to operate scheduled passenger services between London Heathrow and the United States.

  In addition, the following airlines have been granted permission by both the United States Government and the Government of the United Kingdom to operate scheduled passenger services from their country of origin via London (including Heathrow) to the United States:

  Air India

  El Al Israel Airlines

  Kuwait Airways Corporation

  Other airlines may be able to fly from Heathrow to the United States as part of an international route, but without traffic rights on the London—United States sector.

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Services)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects orders to be placed for rolling stock for day and night services from the channel tunnel to destinations on electrified lines north of London;
  342
  (2) how soon after the channel tunnel opens he expects direct services to operate from it to destinations north of London on electrified lines; and whether he expects such services to operate via the West London, Olympia— Willesden-West Hampstead lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 5 December at column 121. British Rail plans to route the direct north of London services via Olympia using the west London and north London lines in the early years of tunnel operation.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make available in the Library the draft report of the inquiry into the shipwreck of MV Derbyshire.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A draft report summarising the results of the Department of Transport's investigation into the tragic loss of MV Derbyshire was circulated in July 1985 to representatives of interested parties for comment. A copy of the final report was placed in the Library on 21 March 1986, and it would be inappropriate now to release copies of the earlier draft report. Since that final report was issued, an independent public inquiry into the loss of the Derbyshire has been held.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The spending by my Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion, and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes in each of the five most recent years is as follows:

  £ thousands

  Press

  Television and radio

  Other advertising

  Video and sound cassettes

  1985–86

  834

  928

  3,990

  36

  1986–87

  738

  592

  4,440

  49

  1987–88

  140

  2,360

  2,967

  43

  1988–89

  365

  1,977

  3,275

  92

  1989–90

  982

  2,163

  3,112

  177

  The expenditure by my Department is recorded in financial years, not calendar years.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Departmental purchasing informa-tion systems do not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. However, information on departmental purchasing expenditure from 1986–87 is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend section 93(7)(a) of the Transport Act 1985 to enable transport authorities to grant fare concessions to men aged 60 to 64 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to change the present arrangements which link eligibility for travel concessions for elderly people to state pensionable age.

  Midland Metro
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest position with regard to the appraisal of line 1 of the Midland Metro scheme proposed by the West Midlands passenger transport executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Considerable work has been done on the appraisal, which is further advanced than that for any other light rail scheme outside London currently being considered by the Department. The formal appraisal procedure is not yet complete. If it proves favourable, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be ready to consider paying development grant in 1991–92 under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 towards the cost of preparing the scheme in greater detail so that the scheme itself may be considered for being funded in 1992–93.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest estimates of the number of vehicles using the Woolwich free ferry; and what were the comparable figures at a similar point in each of the preceding five years.

  Mr. Chope
  The average number of vehicles carried per day was as follows:

  Number

  November 1990

  2,480

  November 1989

  2,515

  November 1988

  1,956

  November 1987

  441

  November 1986

  1,816

  November 1985

  2,945

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of fatalities in accidents involving heavy duty goods vehicles over the past five years, together with the number of fatalities over the same period not involving heavy duty goods vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  Following is the information:

  Fatal casualties in accidents, 1985–89

  Year

  HGV involved

  HGV not involved

  Total

  1985

  811

  4,354

  5,165

  1986

  908

  4,474

  5,382

  1987

  910

  4,215

  5,125

  1988

  900

  4,152

  5,052

  1989

  989

  4,384

  5,373

  This table shows that there was a 22 per cent. increase in fatal casualties in accidents in which at least one HGV was involved between 1985 and 1989.
  344
  Over the same period, HGV traffic, when measured in vehicle kilometres, rose by an estimated 30 per cent.

  Illegal Parking
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the response to his Department's discussion document issued to local authorities on solving the problems created by parking on pavements.

  Mr. Chope
  Over 450 responses were received, expressing a wide range of views. We have concluded that new statutory powers are needed to allow authorities to target problem areas effectively. We are now discussing with the local authorities advice on available engineering measures to deter parking on footways and verges.

  Car Phones
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to meet the Association of Chief Police Officers, or any other relevant organisation, to discuss the safety implications of the use of hand-held car telephones in moving vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I shall take the opportunity of a meeting I shall be having with ACPO on 17 December to raise this issue.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has issued any guidance to the police authorities concerning the safety implications of using hand-held car telephones in moving vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information directed to the public his Department has published on the safety implications of the use of hand-held car telephones in moving vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  Advice to drivers not to use a hand-held microphone or telephone while the vehicle is moving is given in the Highway Code and several other publications.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received expressing concern at the use of hand-held car telephones in moving vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received several letters on this subject in recent months.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to require suppliers of hand-held car telephones to issue safety warnings at the time of purchase concerning their use in moving vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  No. British Telecom already issues advice to purchasers which is consistent with the Highway Code. Officials have written to Oftel about continued publicity.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation restricting the use of hand-held car telephones in moving vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  No specific legislation is necessary. Drivers are already required to maintain full control over their vehicles.

  Defective Eyesight
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of motor traffic accidents in the last five years where defective eyesight was found to be a contributory factor; if he will express the figures as a percentage of all moving traffic accidents for each of the years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Statistics recording accidents are derived from a factual record made by the police at the scene of the accident. They do not include an assessment of the cause and it is not therefore possible to provide information about the number of accidents attributable to a particular factor.

  Manchester Relief Road (Consultation)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make it his policy to ensure that the proposed public consultation on the route of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road will be carried out at venues and times convenient to residents of the Bury South and Bury North parliamentary constituencies.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes.

DEFENCE

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any British service personnel have been made available to the Government of Sri Lanka for any purposes during the last four years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not held centrally. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Radar Masts, Sennybridge
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals exist for the construction of radar masts or any communications system at Mynydd Eppynt near Sennybridge, Dyfed.
  346
  Mr. Alan Clark
  A requirement for new defence communication facilities is under consideration, but no decisions on location have yet been taken.

  Iraq (Supergun)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the involvement of the Advanced Technology Institute in the Iraqi gun order.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Advanced Technology Institute was established as a company in 1987. Since earlier this year, when we became aware of its possible association with the Iraqi gun project, we have maintained a close watch on it. The hon. Member will appreciate I cannot comment further.

  Space Research Corporation
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information has been received by his Department on the Space Research Corporation's contract, Babylon, with British companies;

  (2) what information his Department received on the order placed by the Space Research Corporation for project 839 with British companies.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Space Research Corporation placed no contracts with British companies in this context.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Records
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the charge made at each Companies House satellite office from an inquirer who(a) will collect the microfiche records of the company from the satellite office or (b) gets the microfiche records of the company posted to his or her office or home; and how the charges are arrived at.

  Mr. Redwood
  Those customers who collect their microfiche records from the satellite offices are charged the £2·75 statutory fee per company record. Searches ordered from satellite offices are normally returned to the satellite office the next morning for the standard search fee of £2·75. Should however a customer require his search to be forwarded by post to an address of his choice, this is not carried out from the satellite office.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the workings of the self-regulatory status granted to Lloyd's under the Financial Services Act 1986 in the light of the actions of and the internal inquiries into the syndicates managed by Outhwaite, Oakley Vaughan, Warnlow and Feltrim.

  Mr. Redwood
  The committee of inquiry into regulatory arrangements at Lloyd's, whose report was published in 1987 (Cm. 59), considered the position of Lloyd's with respect to the Financial Services Act. Its recommendations have been implemented, and are designed to improve accountability of syndicates to names.

  CEN Committees
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government support is available to trade union representatives to attend and contribute to CEN standard-setting committees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department funds, and the British Standards Institution (BSI) administers, the assisted international travel scheme. This scheme meets part of the travel costs of certain United Kingdom representatives, including trade union representatives, who act as delegation leaders or principal experts at standards-making meetings overseas. A fixed allowance, basically equivalent to 75 per cent. of the economy class air fare, is payable. The funding provided for 1990–91 is intended to be sufficient to meet, inter alia, all eligible claims for attendance at standards meetings of CEN.

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  (a) Domestic burglary

  Numbers sentenced to over 10 years

  6

  3

  6

  3

  6

  Percentage of all those sentenced to custody

  0·05

  0·03

  0·06

  0·03

  0·08

  (b) Theft

  Numbers sentenced to over 7 years

  2

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Percentage of all those sentenced to custody

  —

  —

  —

  0·01

  —

  — Less than 0·01 per cent.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide funds for missing persons support groups to run a helpline for those who have had friends or relatives go missing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are considering a request from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to fund such a helpline.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people missing from their homes in other parts of the country are estimated by the Metropolitan police to be living in London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The only relevant figure available is the number of young people who have been reported missing to the Metropolitan police by other police forces in the United Kingdom. As at 7 December 1990, 357 such missing person reports were still outstanding.

  These figures relate to all reports concerning, missing young persons received from other police forces, and it is not possible to say in how many cases there was particular reason to believe that the subject of the report might be living in London.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government have any plans to co-operate with other European nations through Interpol for international searches for missing persons, especially children and other vulnerable people.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The use of Interpol is an operational matter for the police. All forces are aware of the facilities provided by Interpol to assist them in their inquiries.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Burglary and Theft
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were sentenced for domestic burglary in England and Wales in each of the last five years for a term exceeding 10 years; and what proportion of the total number of people sentenced to prison for domestic burglary in those years they represent;

  (2) how many people were sentenced for theft in England and Wales in each of the last five years for a term exceeding seven years; and what proportion of the total number of people sentenced to prison for theft in those years they represent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many scientific procedures 'were carried out on animals during 1989 in each of England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Very full information is published annually in the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain" (1989: Cm. 1152). To disaggregate these figures nationally might risk individual establishments being identified and the threat of violent attack is so real that we take care to protect confidentiality.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how the likely benefits of a scientific procedure are assessed when a project licence application under section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is considered; and whether any assessment is made of the value of the products and use;

  (2) how many project licences have been issued in each of the last three years for the testing of cosmetics., and whether any assessment is made during the examination of the licence application of the utility of the product being tested.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that, before a project licence is granted, the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned must be weighed against the benefit likely to accrue from the proposed work. A number of factors contribute towards such assessments which must necessarily be subjective, and these are set out in chapter 4 of the Home Office "Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986" (1990: HC 182).
  349
  As for project licences for the regulatory testing of substances, including cosmetics, the central benefit is ensuring that such substances do not present a hazard in manufacture or transport and are safe for use by the consumer. Since the Act came into force in 1987, a total of six project licences have been issued for the safety testing of cosmetics.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to accept any of the recommendations contained in the recent RSPCA/FRAME report on the use of non-human primates as laboratory animals in Britain.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We share the underlying concerns of this report that non-human primates should not be used in scientific procedures unnecessarily and that where their use can be justified scientifically they should be adequately housed and cared for.

  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 recog-nises the special position of non-human primates and section 5(6) requires that they may be used only where no other species are suitable for a proposed programme of research. Government policy on the use of non-human primates was set out fully in response to a question on 16 November 1987 by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) at columns 386–88. The special requirements of such animals are set out in the Home Office code of practice for the housing and care of laboratory animals (1989: HC 107).

  As the RSPCA/FRAME report makes clear, much of the work covered by the survey was conducted before the special controls of the 1986 Act came into force and before the recommendations for housing and care were published in the code of practice.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the review of suicide prevention management policies and procedures in prisons conducted by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Shortly. Arrangements for publication are already in hand.

  Remand
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now end the practice of holding mentally disturbed persons on remand in Brixton.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The prison service is obliged to hold people who are remanded in custody by the courts, and it is the function of Brixton to deal with remand prisoners and trials from the London area. It is nevertheless the Government's policy that mentally disordered offenders should be diverted from the criminal justice system to the care of the health and social services except when custody is deemed to be in the public interest. This policy is reiterated in Home Office circular 66/70, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Where custody cannot be avoided maximum use is made of the Mental Health Act to transfer those mentally disturbed inmates who require hospital treatment.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is (i) the number of inmates,350
  (ii) the number on remand separately distinguishing the length in months they have been remanded, and (iii) the number serving sentences of longer than six months at (a) Cardiff and (b) Swansea prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  (a) On 5 December 1990, the latest date for which this information is readily available, there were 438 inmates in Cardiff prison of which 206 were on remand. The length in months for which they have been remanded is as set out in the table:

  Number

  Up to 3 months

  159

  4 to 6 months

  44

  7 to 9 months

  0

  Over 9 months

  3

  The number of inmates serving longer than six months is 37.

  (b) On 5 December, the latest date for which this information is available, there were 266 inmates in Swansea prison, of which 98 were on remand. The length in months for which they have been remanded is set out in the table:

  Number

  Up to 3 months

  73

  4 to 6 months

  22

  7 to 9 months

  3

  Over 9 months

  0

  The number of inmates serving longer than six months is 37.

  Mental Handicap Homes
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the police release information to directors of social services of local authorities on any previous convictions of persons who apply for registration of privately owned homes that care for severely disturbed mentally handicapped persons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Except where there is a statutory obligation, the disclosure of police records is at the discretion of chief officers of police. In practice chief officers generally follow guidelines agreed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and issued in Home Office circulars.

  In Wales, there are local arrangements between the police and local authorities which enable social services departments to obtain information about the criminal convictions of all applicants for registration under the Registered Homes Act 1984. Similar national arrangements are being set in place and are due to be implemented in April 1991. They will enable local authorities to obtain from the police details of convictions recorded against a potential owner or manager of a residential care or nursing home. The arrangements will cover both local authority and registered homes; and will apply to small homes once those homes are brought under regulatory control.

  Fire Fighting
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to satisfy himself that the training requirements of the fire service will not jeopardise the continued availability of a local fire fighting crew on islands such as Holy Island.
  351
  Mr. John Patten
  The Northumberland fire authority has a duty, under the Fire Services Acts, to ensure that appropriate standards of fire cover are maintained in its area and for the efficient training of members of its brigade. It also has obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 to ensure that firefighters are adequately trained to meet the dangers of their work.

  Fire cover on Holy Island is provided by a fire appliance operated by local volunteers augmented, where necessary, by firefighters from the mainland. I understand that the fire authority has been concerned that the volunteer firefighters are not adequately trained and that the authority may, as a result, be in breach of its statutory duties. The authority is considering, in discussion with the volunteers and other inhabitants of Holy Island, what further action it should take.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs),Official Report, 28 November, column 418, he will list the organisations to which he is writing to invite comments on the EC draft directive on data protection; and if he will set out the criteria adopted by his Department in selecting these organisations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are writing to United Kingdom organisations with a known interest in data protection issues. There are about 170; I am placing the list in the Library of the House. It is based on the data protection registrar's standard consultation list, together with other organisations which have approached us.

  Weapons (EC Documents)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the implications for personal liberty and civil liberties arising from European Community documents Nos. 10074/89 and 8836/90 on the controls on the acquisition and possession of weapons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no reason to believe that the European Commission's proposal for a directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons will have any implications for personal or civil liberties in Great Britain. But if the hon. Member wishes to draw to our attention any such implications which he considers may exist, we shall consider them carefully.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Trevi group has considered the security implications of European Community documents Nos. 10074/89 and 8836/90 on the control on the acquisition and possession of weapons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The draft directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons is concerned with the legitimate possession and movements of arms within the Community. The general declaration on articles 13 to 19 of the Single European Act explicitly preserves the right of member states to take such measures as they consider necessary to combat terrorism and crime.

  Public Events (Policing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report as to the total cost of policing the Madonna concerts at Wembley in 1990; and how much the promoters of that event were charged for that policing(a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of total policing costs;

  (2) if he will call for a report as to the total cost of policing the Knebworth rock festival for each of the past 10 years; and how much the promoters of that event were charged for that policing (a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of total policing costs;

  (3) if he will call for a report as to the total cost of policing the Castle Donnington "Monsters of Rock" festival for each of the past 10 years; and how much the promoters of that event were charged for that policing (a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of total policing costs;

  (4) if he will call for a report as to the total cost of policing Ascot racecourse for each of the past 10 years; and how much Ascot was charged for this policing (a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of total policing costs;

  (5) if he will call for a report as to the total cost of policing the Glastonbury rock festival for each of the past 10 years; and how much the promoters of that event were charged for that policing (a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of the total policing costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Any charges under section 15 of the Police Act 1964 would have been a matter for the police authority concerned. No information on them is held centrally.

  Football Spectators Act
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those sections of the Football Spectators Act not currently in force; and whether the Government have any current plans to bring each such section into force.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are no plans at present to bring into force subsections (3), (4)(b), (5) and (6) of section 1, sections 2 to 7 and subsections (6), (7), (8)(c) and 12(a) and (b) of section 10, all of which refer to a national membership scheme. The rest of the Act is currently in force with the exception of sections 9 and 13, about which I am replying separately to specific questions tabled by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those parts of the Football Spectators Act currently in force and the dates on which they came into force.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 22 March 1990 the following provisions of the Act came into force:

  (i) subsections (1), (2), (4) except paragraph (b), and (7) to (11) of section 1;

  (ii) section 14, and

  (iii) subsections (1), (9) and (12) of section 22.

  On 24 April 1990 the following provisions of the Act came into force:

  (i) sections 15 to 21;

  (ii)subsections (2) to (8), (10) and (11) of section 22., and

  (iii) sections 23 to 26 and schedule 1.

  On 1 June 1990 the following provisions of the Act came into force:

  353

  (i) section 8 and schedule 2;

  (ii) subsections (1) to (5), (8) except paragraph (c), (9) to (11), (12) except paragraphs (a) and (b), and (13) to (17) of section 10; and

  (iii) sections 11 and 12.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to make an order bringing into force section 9 of the Football Spectators Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  An order bringing into effect section 9 of the Football Spectators Act 1989, which creates the offence of admitting spectators to unlicensed premises, will be made as soon as the Football Licensing Authority is in a position to issue licences for football grounds at which designated football matches are played. Both we and the Football Licensing Authority are of the view that the licensing scheme should be introduced as soon as it is practicable to do so, but it would be unrealistic to expect the authority to administer such a scheme effectively before it has acquired the necessary staff and expertise to do so.

  Football Licensing Authority
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total amount of funding made available to the Football Licensing Authority to date; what is his best estimate of the resources required by the Football Licensing Authority over the coming year; and what level of funding he will make available to the Football Licensing Authority for the next year.

  Mr. John Patten
  The approved provision for the Football Licensing Authority for the current financial year is £670,000. We have been advised by the authority that its actual expenditure in the period to the end of March 1991 is unlikely to exceed £270,000. Provision has been made in the public expenditure survey for the 1991–92 financial year for grant in aid to the authority of a maximum of £898,000. This represents an increase of £208,000 on the PES provision originally approved for 1991–92, before the role of the authority was reviewed in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to increase funding for the Football Licensing Authority for fulfilling its functions under section 13 of the Football Spectators Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. Neither we nor the Football Licensing Authority have any reason to believe that the funding provision already made for the Football Licensing Authority will be inadequate to enable it properly to discharge all its statutory functions, including those under section 13 of the Football Spectators Act 1989, when that section of the Act is brought into force.

  Conferences (Policing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report as to the cost of policing the Police Federation conference for each of the past 10 years; and how much the federation was charged for that policing(a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of total policing costs;
  354
  (2) if he will call for a report as to the cost of policing the Association of Chief Police Officers conference for each of the past 10 years; and how much the association was charged for that policing (a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of total policing costs;

  (3) if he will call for a report as to the cost of policing the Police Superintendents Association conference for each of the past 10 years; and how much the association was charged for that policing (a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of total policing costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Any charges made under section 15 of the Police Act 1964 would have been a matter for the police authority concerned. No information on them is held centrally.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report as to the total cost of policing the Labour party conference for each of the past 10 years; and how much the Labour party was charged for that policing(a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of total policing costs;

  (2) if he will call for a report as to the total cost of policing the Conservative party conference for each of the past 10 years; and how much the Conservative party was charged for that policing (a) in actual amounts and (b) as a percentage of total policing costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief officers of the forces concerned that the additional costs of policing the Conservative and Labour party conferences from 1987 onwards were estimated as follows:

  Conservative

  Force

  Year

  Additional cost £

  Lancashire

  1987

  829,000

  Sussex

  1988

  1,400,000

  Lancashire

  1989

  1,08,000

  Dorset

  1990

  2,000,000

  Labour

  Force

  Year

  Additional cost £

  Sussex

  1987

  23,000

  Lancashire

  1988

  61,000

  Sussex

  1989

  4,000

  Lancashire

  1990

  97,545

  Previous figures are not held centrally. No contribution to these costs was made by the political parties concerned. The level of policing is a matter for the chief constable concerned, having regard to the threat and all other relevant circumstances.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many youngsters of 15 and 16 years of age have been held in Welsh prisons during the past year(a) on unruly behaviour certificates or (b) in other circumstances.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Statistics on certificates of unruliness are not collected centrally. The readily available information is given in the table.
  355

  Males1 aged under 17 who were first received on remand or under sentence into prison service establishments in Wales2: by type of reception and age, 1989

  Type of reception

  Aged 15

  Aged 16

  Unsentenced

  27

  39

  Sentenced

  3

  11

  1 Total receptions cannot be calculated by adding both categories because a person received as an unsentenced prisoner may also subsequently be received after sentence.

  2 Usk YOI and Cardiff and Swansea prisons.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to end the practice of remanding 15 or 16-year-old boys to adult prisons pending trial or sentence.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the policy of holding 15 and 16-year-olds in Welsh prisons on unruly behaviour certificates.

  Mr. John Patten
  I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to questions from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 3 December at columns 11–12.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Home Office purchasing information systems do not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. However, information on departmental purchasing expenditure from 1986–87 is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Figures for expenditure on advertising and other promotional material for the years from 1986–87 to 1990–91 are as follows:

  Year

  Total advertising expenditure (all media) £ million

  Production and distribution of other promotional material £ million

  1986–87

  5·0

  1·4

  1987–88

  4·7

  2·1

  1988–89

  5·4

  2·8

  1989–90

  5·5

  3·7

  1990–911

  8·4

  4·2

  1 Provisional.

  It would not be possible to provide more detailed information on advertising expenditure except at disproportionate cost.

  Golden Globe Charitable Trust
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Charity Commissioners to inquire into the affairs of the Golden Globe Charitable Trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission. I understand that the commissioners have received no complaints about the administration of the Golden Globe Charitable Trust and that they have no evidence to justify launching an investigation. If the hon. Member is aware of any matters giving cause for concern I urge him to write to the chief charity commissioner.

HEALTH

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the purchasing policy of his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department is bound by the Government's policy that purchasers should base all procurement of goods and services on value for money, including quality (or fitness for purpose) and delivery against price. In accordance with that policy, goods and services are acquired by competitive tendering unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Under EC rules, and the GATT Government procurement agreement (GPA) where appropriate, the Department is obliged to award contracts in accordance with prescribed procedures aimed at avoiding discrimination on grounds of nationality.

  Rape (HIV)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women in the United Kingdom are known to have tested seropositive for HIV subsequent to their being raped.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on rape is not requested as part of the surveillance system for HIV antibody positive reporting. Information supplied spontaneously to the public health laboratory service communicable disease surveillance centre reported two women who were tested HIV antibody positive subsequent to reported rape in England and Wales. However, from the information supplied it cannot be determined whether HIV infection was acquired through rape. No such cases have been reported to the communicable disease (Scotland) unit.

  Nursing and Midwifery Colleges
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals are being considered for the transfer of responsibility for any colleges of nursing and midwifery to the Secretary of State for Education and Science;

  (2) what proposals are being considered for centralising colleges of nursing and midwifery on a regional basis;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to publish proposals for the protection of employment for teaching staff before any proposals are made to alter departmental responsibility for colleges of nursing and midwifery.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans for transferring responsibility for colleges of nursing and
  357
  midwifery from this Department to the Department of Education and Science, or for centralising colleges of nursing and midwifery on a regional basis. The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has, however, encouraged the amalgamation of schools of nursing and midwifery to produce larger institutions with a wider range of resources. Schools have also been encouraged to develop links with further education and higher education institutions and in a few instances there has been full integration with such an institution. In such cases the implications for the staff of the school would be for local management to resolve.

  Alternative Medicine
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what branches of complementary and alternative medicine national health service patients have access.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Practitioners registered with the General Medical Council may offer their patients any form of treatment, including the use of complementary therapies. There is evidence that such practitioners are making increasing use of techniques such as osteopathy, acupuncture and homeopathy.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is available to national health service patients about access to alternative therapies and medicine.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Patients considering alternative therapies and medicines should first consult their general practitioner who is in the best position to make a clinical judgment on the most appropriate form of treatment.

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes

  Dually registered homes

  1985

  Bedfordshire

  1

  Doncaster HA

  1

  Lancashire

  1

  Fylde HA

  1

  Worcester and Hereford HA

  1

  2

  3

  1986

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Airedale HA

  1

  Devon

  1

  Croydon HA

  1

  Dudley

  1

  Doncaster HA

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  2

  Hastings HA

  2

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Lancashire

  1

  Liverpool

  2

  Norfolk

  2

  North Yorkshire

  2

  Sefton

  1

  South Tyneside

  2

  16

  5

  1987

  Bromley

  1

  East Dorset HA

  2

  Devon

  1

  Plymouth HA

  1

  East Sussex

  1

  South East Kent HA

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  Hertfordshire

  2

  Humberside

  1

  Lancashire

  4

  Leicestershire

  2

  Liverpool

  1

  Northampton

  1

  Sheffield

  1

  South Glamorgan

  1

  Southampton General Hospital
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the number of patients on waiting lists for the Southampton general hospital by specialty.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information by individual hospital is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Professor J. B. L. Howell, the chairman of Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority, for the relevant information.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that there will be no victimisation of employees of the health service who publicly opposed self-governing trusts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no question of anyone being victimised because they publicly opposed self-governing trusts.

  Private Residential Homes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 November,Official Report, column 99, on private residential homes, if he will break down the figures given by local authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The local authorities and health authorities which reported the cancellations of registrations of persons running residential care and nursing homes detailed in that answer were:
  359

  Residential care homes

  Nursing homes

  Dually registered homes

  Suffolk

  3

  Surrey

  2

  Sutton

  2

  Warwickshire

  2

  28

  4

  1988

  Avon

  3

  Bath and District HA

  2

  Kingston Upon Thames/Kingston and Esher

  2

  Bradford

  5

  Clwyd HA

  1

  Derbyshire

  4

  Eastbourne HA

  2

  Devon

  2

  Harrogate HA

  2

  Dudley

  1

  Northants HA

  2

  East Sussex

  4

  Scunthorpe HA

  2

  Essex

  8

  South Cumbria HA

  1

  Havering

  2

  Wycombe HA

  3

  Hertfordshire

  2

  Kent

  4

  Lancashire

  2

  Liverpool

  2

  Manchester

  2

  Northamptonshire

  2

  North Yorkshire

  2

  Staffordshire

  4

  Suffolk

  1

  Tameside

  2

  Wirral

  2

  54

  15

  2

  1989

  Avon

  1

  Croydon

  1

  Devon CC/Exeter HA

  2

  Bradford

  3

  Kingston and Esher HA

  1

  Brent

  2

  Scarborough HA

  1

  Bromley

  1

  Cleveland

  2

  Devon

  3

  Essex

  2

  Hampshire

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  2

  Hertfordshire

  2

  Humberside

  1

  Lancashire

  4

  Leicestershire

  1

  Liverpool

  2

  North Yorkshire

  2

  Sheffield

  1

  South Tyneside

  1

  Stockport

  1

  Suffolk

  2

  Wakefield

  2

  Warwickshire

  4

  Wirral

  2

  Wolverhampton

  1

  44

  13

  2

  1 Includes 2 cases relating to 1989 omitted in error in the answer given on 20 November.

  The corrected figures for the reasons for the cancellations reported in 1989 are:

  the fitness of persons involved in running the home: 38 cases

  the fitness of premises, or their staffing: 6 cases

  the conduct of the home or services or facilities provided: 24 cases

  conviction of an offence under the Registered Homes Act 1984: 1 case

  urgent closure on application to a Justice of the Peace: 7 cases

  In a number of cases, more than one reason was cited.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by regional health authority area, those general practitioner practices which have been granted fund-holding status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Formal granting of fund-holding status by regional health authorities is not expected to begin before January 1991.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether general practitioners are required to balance their budgets by March 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At present general practition-ers do not have "budgets". The general practitioner
  361
  fund-holding scheme, which commences on 1 April 1991, will allow eligible practices to volunteer to receive a sum of money to purchase a range of services for their patients. Non fund-holding practices, from 1 April 1991, will be assigned an indicative prescribing amount which will relate to their drug expenditure. The indicative prescribing amount will, however, be a financial benchmark and not a cash limit.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has indicating trends in expenditure from general practitioners' budgets for drugs.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The indicative prescribing scheme under which general practitioners will be set amounts for anticipated expenditure on drugs comes into operation on 1 April 1991. Since the introduction of PACT (prescribing analyses and cost system) in August 1988 there has been a slowdown in the rate of increase of the cost of drugs prescribed by general practitioners.

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements exist for the provision of an occupational health service for employees within his Department, stating(a) how many staff are employed to provide occupational health services, (b) how many of those staff are qualified nurses and (c) how many employees work in his Department in total.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All civil service departments and agencies have access to the services of the Civil Service Occupational Health Service which employs some 100 fully qualified occupational health professionals, doctors, nurses and hygiene and safety advisers. It operates through a network of regional offices throughout the United Kingdom. On 1 November 1990 the Department had 5,002 employees.

  Grading Appeals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given or will be given to health authorities in respect of successful outstanding clinical grading appeals where there is an existing overspend.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The costs of successful clinical grading appeals are one of many factors which health authorities recognise in managing their budget for the year. The Department is not intending to issue specific guidance on this.

  Patient Transport
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health or ambulance service authorities are known to be generating income by charging for patient transport services; and in each case, how much income is so generated.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the year 1989–90, 31 ambulance authorities showed figures for income from charging for patient transport services. The figure for each authority is shown in the table. All figures are subject to audit and are therefore provisional.
  362

  Income from the non-NHS use of ambulance services—1989–90

  Regional indicator

  £

  Northern RHA

  A00

  119,078

  South Tees

  A03

  295

  East Cumbria

  A04

  12,640

  Durham

  A08

  8,876

  Yorkshire RHA

  B00

  11,918

  Hull

  B12

  331

  York

  B23

  62,379

  Trent RHA

  C00

  1,274

  Nottingham

  C08

  23,629

  East Suffolk

  D04

  2,591

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  D07

  15,407

  Huntingdon

  D09

  14,606

  Eastbourne

  G02

  38,234

  South West Thames RHA

  H00

  67,983

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  J22

  60

  Swindon

  J32

  24,316

  Aylesbury

  K21

  831

  Kettering

  K31

  285

  Northampton

  K32

  4,222

  Southmead

  L13

  1(230)

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  L21

  4,346

  Torbay

  L34

  2,012

  West Midlands RHA

  M00

  18,156

  Worcester

  M04

  663

  Shropshire

  M05

  419

  Mid Staffordshire

  M06

  8,911

  South Warwickshire

  M11

  1,581

  Chester

  N11

  2,303

  South Sefton

  N42

  59,108

  North Western RHA

  P00

  11,517

  Preston

  P03

  26,349

  Total

  544,090

  1 Bracket indicates a negative income.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of general practitioner-prescribed hormone replacement therapy treatments in each of the standard regions; and if he will express this cost as a figure per head of female population over 40 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Net ingredient cost (NIC) of hormone replacement therapy treatments in 1989

  Regional health authority

  NIC thousands £

  Female population 40 and over

  Cost/Head £

  Northern

  1,419

  742,946

  1·91

  Yorkshire

  1,749

  866,771

  2·02

  Trent

  1,912

  1,111,981

  1·72

  East Anglia

  935

  489,630

  1·91

  North West Thames

  2,025

  788,292

  2·57

  North East Thames

  1,823

  867,000

  2·10

  South East Thames

  2,020

  906,652

  2·23

  South West Thames

  1,919

  740,340

  2·59

  Wessex

  1,928

  711,776

  2·71

  Oxford

  1,566

  546,621

  2·86

  South Western

  1,838

  876,943

  2·10

  West Midlands

  2,788

  1,213,442

  2·30

  Mersey

  1,405

  576,683

  2·44

  North Western

  2,174

  943,210

  2·30

  England

  25,501

  11,382,287

  2·24

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are based on a sample of prescriptions of

  363
  approximately 1 in 200 in England which were dispensed by community pharmacists.

  2. The population data has been extracted from OPCS estimates.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reach conclusions about the costs and benefits of long-term hormone replacement therapy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department is funding a research project by Professor Martin Vessey of Oxford university, who is examining the costs and benefits of hormone replacement therapy in relation to the menopause. Professor Vessey's study is expected to be completed in early 1992.

  Life Insurance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government have taken since the publication in November 1989 of their response to the seventh report of the Select Committee on Social Services, Session 1988–89, to consider with the insurance industry the effect of asking proposers for life insurance whether they have ever had an HIV test.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since we published our response to the Select Committee report, officials have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Association of British Insurers (ABI,) to discuss the effect of HIV test questions on proposal forms for life insurance. I met Michael Pickard, the chairman of the Life Insurance Council of the ABI, and his colleagues on 12 November. We discussed the possible effects of the ABI's recommended procedures and the need to ensure that people were not dissuaded from coming forward for testing, help and advice about HIV infection. We have, jointly with the ABI, commissioned the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) to carry out a survey of public perceptions of the effect of the questions. The BMRB is currently in the process of interviewing experts, advice workers, the general public and young adults. We expect to receive the results early in the new year, when further meetings with the ABI are planned.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health's budget for communications and publicity includes provision for nurse recruitment, blood donor recruitment and drug misuse campaigns.

  Information for the years 1985–86 to 1987–88 is not available in the form requested.

  Expenditure by the Department's information division for 1988–89 is as follows:

  £ million

  Press advertising

  1·196

  TV and radio advertising

  1·867

  Other advertising

  0·661

  Other material (including approximately £250,000 for videos and sound cassettes)

  7·075

  364

  £ million

  Expenditure for 1989–90 is as follows:

  Press advertising

  2·739

  TV and radio advertising

  3·676

  Other advertising

  0·865

  Other material (including approximately £200,000 for videos and sound cassettes)

  9·964

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Departmental purchasing information systems do not differentiate between costs of acquiring and commissioning goods and services. However, information on total departmental expenditure on goods and services from 1986–87 onwards is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are available in the Library. For years prior to 1989–90 it was not possible to differentiate Department of Health expenditure within the overall Department of Health and Social Security total.

  North Derbyshire Health Authority
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what honorarium is paid to each member of North Derbyshire health authority; and how many meetings it is due to hold each year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Non-executive members of district health authorities receive an honorarium of £5,000 per annum. It is for individual health authorities to determine how often they should meet. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact Mr. R. B. Robinson, chairman of North Derbyshire health authority, for this information.

  Health Research
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) in cash terms and (b) deflated according to an appropriate index of higher education pay and prices the spending on health and personal social services research in each year from 1979 to the most recent year which his Department has funded in universities, polytechnics and other related institutions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Spending on health and personal social services research in England and Wales for 1989–90, the latest for which outturn figures are available, was £15·4 million.

  Information for earlier years has been published in the Cabinet Office annual review of Government-funded research and development, copies of which are available in the Library.

  HIV
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from organisations and individuals in respect of an out-of-court settlement for people who have contracted HIV through national health service infected blood or blood products.
  365
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to the reply, 16 November 1990, c. 248]: The steering committee of solicitors representing the HIV haemophiliac plaintiffs and their counsel have put forward to the Department of Health proposals for the settlement of this litigation which they regard as a fair and reasonable resolution of the plaintiffs' claims.

  The Government have carefully considered these proposals and agree that they will provide a fair and proper way of ending this litigation and of making financial provision for all affected haemophiliacs and their dependants, whether or not they have joined in the litigation. We believe that our case is legally strong and that the plaintiffs would not succeed in proving negligence on the part of the Department of Health. None the less the Government have always recognised the very special and tragic circumstances of the haemophiliacs infected by HIV and of their families. We recognise too the harrowing effect legal action would have on them.

  The Government have therefore agreed in principle to meet the steering committee's proposals.

  In outline the compromise would result in the Government providing to the Macfarlane Trust, in addition to the £34 million already paid, a further sum of about £42 million for distribution to all HIV haemophi-liacs and their families according to their respective circumstances. Furthermore, the Government have agreed that payments from the Macfarlane Trust will not affect entitlement to social security and other statutory benefits. The plaintiffs' reasonable legal costs would also be paid by the Government.

  Because the proposed settlement will require the formal approval of all individual plaintiffs, and in the case of minors, of the court, it would be inappropriate at this time to publish further details until all plaintiffs and the court have had an opportunity to consider the full terms of the settlement and to approve them.

  The Government would apply the outcome of any settlement to all parts of the United Kingdom.

  The Government welcome these developments, which offer a speedy way of ending the lengthy period of uncertainty for haemophiliacs and their families and of giving them additional financial security.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Official IRA
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information his Department has on whether the Official IRA continues to exist in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I believe that the Official IRA still exists.

  Health Research
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) in cash terms and (b) deflated according to an appropriate index of higher education pay and prices the spending on health and personal social services research in each year from 1979 to the most recent year which his Department has funded in universities, polytechnics and other related institutions.
  366
  Mr. Hanley
  Spending by the Department of Health and Social Services on health and personal social services research in Northern Ireland for 1989–90, the latest year for which an outturn figure is available, was £0·83 million.

  Information for earlier years has been published in the appropriation accounts for Northern Ireland Departments.

  Home Help
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many individuals currently in receipt of home help service receive(a) less than one hour per day, (b) less than two hours but more than one hour per day, (c) less than three hours but more than two hours per day and (d) more than three hours per day;

  (2) how many individuals currently in receipt of home help service receive a daily allocation of home help time Monday to Saturday but no service on Sunday;

  (3) how many individuals currently in receipt of home help service receive a daily allocation of home help time Monday to Friday but no service on Saturday and Sunday;

  (4) what was the average amount of home help time received, per day, by each individual in receipt of home help service in each year since 1986, in each health board area in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answers 4 December 1990]: The information requested could be made available only at disproportionate cost to the health and social services boards which are responsible for the management and delivery of the home help service.

ENVIRONMENT

  Private Rented Housing
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the private rented housing market since the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is too early to assess the overall impact of the Act on private renting. Research now in progress will provide information in the course of 1991. There are, however, clear signs of increased activity in the residential lettings market. In particular, business expansion scheme companies have so far raised £550 million, which will provide about 10,000 new homes to rent.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the National Rivers Authority reports covering all of England and Wales which provide information on the bathing beaches monitoring programme for the 1990 bathing season.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State announced on 14 November that a detailed summary of these National Rivers Authority monitoring results will be placed in the Library.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of the decision by South Yorkshire waste disposal joint committee to close its
  367
  hazardous waste unit, he proposes to exercise his powers under section 31 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution expects to submit a report to the Secretary of State shortly on the arrangements for waste regulation in South Yorkshire. My right hon. Friend will wish to consider this carefully before deciding whether it would be appropriate to use his powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985 to set up a metropolitan waste authority for the area. He has no intention at this stage of using his powers under section 31 of the Environmental Protection Act to set up a regional waste authority.

  Home Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the real rate of increase in house prices in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) Italy since 1985.

  Mr. Yeo
  House prices in the United Kingdom increased by 101 per cent. between 1985 and the third quarter of 1990, as measured by the Department of the Environment's index. Information about house prices in the other three counties is not regularly received in the Department.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to review his proposed standard spending assessments for 1991–92 for(a) the London borough of Westminster and (b) the London borough of Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  All authorities are treated on the same basis for the purposes of calculating standard spending assessments. We are at present considering all representations received in respect of the proposals for revenue support grant in 1991–92 set out in the statement of 31 October. We will announce final decisions shortly.

  Benzene
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the total amount of benzene emitted to the atmosphere by combustion engines in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  Benzene emissions into the atmosphere have been estimated by the Harwell laboratory in a report: "Hydrocarbon involvement in Photochemical Ozone in Europe, AERE-R 13736". Copies of the report have been deposited in the Library of the House. In 1987 total benzene emissions for the United Kingdom amounted to about 36,000 tonnes, of which 61 per cent. has been attributed to petrol vehicle exhaust, 21 per cent. from the evaporation of motor spirit and 10 per cent. from diesel vehicle exhaust.

  Vacant Land
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement, further to the consultation paper "Encouraging the Use of Vacant Public Land", as to the particular functions and the timescale which would be accepted by him as constituting sufficient grounds on which to regard development plans as being firm.
  368
  Mr. Yeo
  Deciding whether an owner's plans are sufficiently firm to make the issue of a direction undesirable is essentially a matter of judgment, taking all relevant factors, including the owner's purpose and the timescale of the proposed development, into account. My right hon. Friend will consider each case on its merits.

  Red-eared Terrapins
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to discourage the importation for sale of red-eared terrapins as domestic pets.

  Mr. Baldry
  At present, there are no conservation reasons for restricting the importation of red-eared terrapins, because there is no evidence that they are endangered, or are becoming endangered in the wild. We are, however, currently discussing with our European partners a new EC regulation to replace regulation 3626/82, which implements the convention on international trade in endangered species (CITES) within the European Community; and we shall ensure that the question whether red-eared terrapins should be brought within the control of this regulation is given careful consideration.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has received regarding ecological damage caused by red-eared terrapins, formerly domestic pets, which have been released into the wild.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am not aware of any evidence of ecological damage caused by red-eared terrapins being released into the wild in Britain.

  Planning Legislation
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions he has made on the proposals in his Department's April 1990 consultation paper, "Miscellaneous Amendments to Subordinate Planning Legislation".

  Mr. Yeo
  After careful consideration of all the responses to the consultation paper, "Miscellaneous Amendments to Subordinate Planning Legislation", the Government have decided to proceed with the following proposals:

  (a) to include a statement of owners' property rights on the form which applicants for planning permission are required to serve on the owners and others with an interest in the land;

  (b) to grant permitted development rights to licensed operators of driver information systems to install the requisite equipment, subject to limitations governing size and height;

  (c) to amend the restriction on the use of factory and warehouse extensions built under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1938 to allow their use for social, welfare and recreational uses ancillary to the main function of the site;

  (d) to include dry cleaning establishments in the Shops class (A1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

  The Government have decided not to proceed with the following proposals:

  (i) to grant permitted development rights for postal pouch boxes;

  (ii) to grant permitted development rights for the installation of liquefied gas tanks in the curtilage of dwellinghouses;

  369

  (iii) to include launderettes in the Shops class (A1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

  Amending orders reflecting these decisions will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Running Costs
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on 8 November,Official Report, columns 15–16, if he will make a further statement on his Department's running costs limit for 1990–91.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I regret that the calculation of the cumulative changes in my Department's running costs limit across the votes concerned contained an error. The running costs limit has, in fact, been increased by £4,296,000 from £153,458,000 to £157,754,000.

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposed to take in regard to Doncaster metropolitan borough council under part I of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has today issued a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 requiring Doncaster metropolitan borough council to expose certain building cleaning work to competitive tendering again by 1 November 1991. He has taken this action because he was not satisfied with the response which Doncaster metropolitan borough council made to the notice served on 21 September 1990 under section 13 of the Act.

  That notice set out the Secretary of State's view that Doncaster metropolitan borough council had acted contrary to the requirement of section 7(7) of the act (which is that, in awarding a contract, an authority must not act in a manner having the effect or intended or likely to have the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition) in that, in putting building cleaning work out to tender with a start date for contracts of 1 September 1990, they packaged the work and adopted a timetable for the tendering in an anti-competitive manner. The Secretary of State has decided to take no further action in the case of the so-called north, east and west area contracts. His direction relates to building cleaning work comprised in the so-called south area contract, which is the largest of the four area contracts put out to tender.

  Protected Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of licences issued under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to destroy protected species in 1989 and 1990, the different species they were issued for and the number for each species.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 27 November 1990]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each local authority (i) the amount of capital receipts generated 370
  in 1988–89 and 1989–90 and (ii) the amount available from these receipts for capital projects with totals for each class of authority and England as a whole.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: I have today arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Students
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students in receipt of grant withdrew from their course in institutions on higher education in the past full academic year; what was the total grant involved; and if he will express that figure as a percentage of all grant awards made.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 1,634 students in receipt of a maintenance grant under the students' allowances scheme withdrew from their courses during academic session 1989–90. The maintenance grant payments made to them amounted to £1,778,885, which represents 2·03 per cent. of all maintenance payments made in respect of that academic session.

  Health and Social Services Research
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) in cash terms and (b) deflated according to an appropriate index of higher education pay and prices, the spending on health and personal social services research in each year from 1979 to the most recent year which his Department has funded in universities, polytechnics and other related institutions.

  Mr. Lang
  Spending on health and personal social services research in Scotland for 1989–90, the latest for which outturn figures are available, was £5·7 million.

  Information for earlier years has been published in the Cabinet Office annual review of Government-funded research and development.

  AIDS
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total sum spent by his Department on research into human AIDS.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of £1·1 million.

  Road Works
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to increase the amount of local authority general road works that is subject to competitive tender.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and I consider that additional competition for roads work will be beneficial in securing better value for money. We have therefore decided to increase from 30 per cent. to 60 per cent. the minimum proportion of the aggregate value of road jobs costing £25,000 or less which must be put out to competitive tender by local authorities in Scotland under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Our decision will bring arrangements in Scotland in line with
  371
  those which have been in force in England and Wales since 1 April 1988. I shall be laying the necessary regulations to give effect to this change which is to come into operation from 1 April 1991.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information the Scottish Office is gathering on the impact of Scottish students of the poll tax in order to evaluate the policy and to prepare new legislation.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 7 December 1990]: For the purposes of the recently announced review of the community charge, my right hon. Friend will be considering to what extent he needs to supplement the information already available to him about the position of students, as about other relevant aspects.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report by region the actual average non-domestic rate valuation increases resulting from the 1990 revaluation.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 7 December 1990] The percentage change in the aggregate rateable value in each regional and islands area between 1 April 1989 and 1 April 1990 is shown in the table. Although the major cause of the increases will have been the revaluation of non-domestic property which took effect on 1 April 1990, other factors such as additions to and deletions from the valuation roll will also be reflected in the figures.

  Per cent.

  Borders

  46·8

  Central

  29·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  36·4

  Fife

  25·7

  Grampian

  21·4

  Highland

  46·8

  Lothian

  46·4

  Strathclyde

  41·1

  Tayside

  49·5

  Orkney

  8·3

  Shetland

  12·4

  Western Isles

  41·0

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the average increases in non-domestic rate valuations on which he calculated the Scottish average valuation increase for adjusting the non-domestic rate poundages in the current year.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 7 December 1990]: The non-domestic rates prescribed for 1990–91 were not determined using regional average increases in rateable values but by applying the average increase in rateable values for Scotland as a whole. The factor used was based on estimates provided by regional assessors, the Treasury valuer and the assessor of public undertakings (Scotland), supplemented with a sample survey undertaken by regional assessors at the request of the Scottish Office. An adjustment was made to reflect the change in the level of industrial derating. Disaggregation of the estimates by regions gives the values shown in the table. The figure for Fife is lower than it should be because of an error in the apportionment of the rateable value of the electricity companies among regions which was corrected before the new valuation roll came into effect. This had no effect on the factor used to determine non-domestic rates for 1990–91.
  372

  Per cent.

  Borders

  39·1

  Central

  21·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  35·0

  Fife

  12·6

  Grampian

  22·9

  Highland

  30·4

  Lothian

  44·6

  Strathclyde

  40·9

  Tayside

  41·6

  Orkney

  18·5

  Shetland

  11·8

  Western Isles

  23·0

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many persons who have been found eligible for relief under the Personal Community Charge (Relief) (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 were dead prior to the coming into force of the said regulations;

  (2) how many persons, to date, have been eligible to have their liability to pay the personal community charge reduced for the financial year 1989–90, by virtue of the Personal Community Charge (Relief) (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, in each local authority area in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: Details of the numbers of persons eligible for relief under these regulations are still awaited from local authorities. Where a person died prior to the coming into force of the regulations, payment of relief may be made to the executor of the deceased's estate, where the other criteria for entitlement to relief have been met. Returns from authorities to the Department are not required to identify such cases separately.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in reviewing the poll tax, he will bring forward proposals to end the joint and several liability for spouses' poll tax debts.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the forthcoming review will consider all aspects of the community charge arrangements.

  Football Spectators
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of criminal proceedings currently in progress in Scotland involving alleged offences by persons from England or Wales which correspond to offences contained in schedule 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989; when is the likely date of completion of each of these proceedings; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 December 1990]: There is one such case currently in progress in Scotland. No date has yet been fixed for it to call in court.

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has anything to add to the reply of 21 November,Official Report, column 285, in the light of representations from the British Medical Association and the area medical committee concerning their reactions to Lothian health board's proposals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 December 1990]: In response to Lothian health board's consultation

  373
  document, the Lothian area medical committee in its letter of 16 July gave a clear statement of support for the concentration of paediatric medical and surgical services, of neurosurgery, of urological services and of accident and emergency services, and the movement as proposed of respiratory medicine, rheumatology and lithotripsy. This represents a substantial proportion of the board's proposals.

  The committee also expressed concern that the proposals would result in a reduction in the quality and quantity of clinical care. Both I and my right hon. Friend have acknowledged that some specialties will be temporarily inconvenienced during the implementation of the changes. In the longer term a new pattern of acute hospital services will be created to allow the more efficient use of medical and nursing staff, as well as of buildings and facilities.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the projects and centres to which his Department has contributed financially in respect of research into alcohol misuse, with the figure for each such project or centre in the present financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Project Title

  Project co-ordinators

  Grant in 1990–91 £

  Evaluation of a home detoxification service.

  Forth Valley Health Board

  1,000

  Antibody Against Acetaldehyde—Protein adducts as possible aversion treatments for modifying alcohol consumatory behaviour and as new tools for identifying chronic alcohol consumption.

  Aberdeen University

  10,000

  Literature review on alcohol and young people

  Law School, University of Strathclyde.

  4,000

  In addition, the Scottish Home and Health Department has provided funding of £95,000 in 1990–91 towards the cost of the research unit in health and behavioural change at Edinburgh university. Alcohol misuse is one of a range of factors studied by the unit which directly or indirectly cause ill-health.

  Afforestation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that afforestation projects involve the planting of indigenous, ecologically important species of trees.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: The Forestry Commission normally requires a proportion of the trees in any afforestation project under the woodland grant scheme to be broadleaved, and these are often indigenous species. Higher rates of planting grant are available for broadleaved trees and last year over 75 per cent. of the trees planted under the farm woodland scheme and nearly 25 per cent. of all the trees planted
  374
  under the woodland grant scheme were broadleaved. In Scotland, the Forestry Commission has special grants to encourage the establishment of new native pinewoods.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will encourage the development of natural woodland by a process of long-term set-aside of land for colonisation by indigenous trees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: Through the woodland grant scheme, the Forestry Commission encourages the owners of suitable land to set aside areas for the natural regeneration of indigenous trees. Grants are available for this purpose under the scheme.

  RECHAR Programme
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the EC RECHAR programme to support areas in Scotland affected by the closure of coal mines; and what funds are being made available by his Department in addition to previous spending plans to ensure that full advantage is taken of that programme in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: Proposals for RECHAR programmes in eastern and western Scotland were submitted by the Government to the European Commission on 27 July. Decisions are awaited. Assuming the Commission grants money to the Scottish programmes, the Government will ensure that the provisions of the Community regulations on additionality are fully met.

  Health Service
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the formula whereby the Greater Glasgow health board calculates the reimbursement of ancillary staff salaries to general practices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: This is a matter for Greater Glasgow health board, within the terms of the statement of fees and allowances.

  Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the proceeds of the sale of the Scottish Development Agency property portfolio in 1990–91; and how these proceeds have been used.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: Receipts for the period 1 April 1990 to 30 November 1990 in respect of all disposals of property amount to £58.5 million. These proceeds, taken together with the agency's general business receipts and with grant-in-aid provision, are being used to finance the agency's gross expenditure during the year.

  Mental Handicap Nursing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what advice he has given to local authorities in Scotland regarding the maintenance and professional role of those nurses with mental handicap training in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;
  375
  (2) what specific future role there is for nurses with mental handicap training in the new arrangements for community care in Scotland;

  (2) what specific future role there is for nurses with mental handicap training in the new arrangements for the national health service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: Nurses with mental handicap training will continue to fulfil a vital role in the provision of specialised health services for people with mental handicaps. Although over time, some of these nurses may change their place of work, they will continue to be required to provide skilled care for people with severe or profound handicaps whether living in institutions or the community where they will often be members of community mental handicap teams. In addition, hospitals, although reduced in size, will continue to provide care for a substantial number of patients for the foreseeable future. In due course local authorities will make their own decisions on the skill mix and the staffing levels required for their services and any necessary central guidance will be issued at the appropriate time.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at 1990–91 figures, how much was spent on youth training in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and how much will be spent in 1991–92 in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: Expenditure on youth training in Scotland in 1989–90 at 1990–91 prices was £110,976,000.

  Figures for expenditure on youth training in Scotland for the year 1990–91 will not be available until after the end of that financial year.

  Budgets for expenditure on youth training in Scotland in 1991–92 have yet to be finalised and will in due course be published in grant-in-aid tables in the supply estimates for the regional and general industrial support, Scotland vote (class XV vote 3) for 1991–92.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at 1990–91 figures, how much was spent on employment training in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and how much will be spent in 1991–92 in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: Expenditure on employment training in Scotland in 1989–90 at 1990–91 prices was £133,686,000.

  Figures for expenditure on employment training in Scotland in 1990–91 will not be available until after the end of that financial year.

  Budgets for expenditure on employment training in Scotland in 1991–92 have yet to be finalised and will in due course be published in the grant-in-aid tables in the supply estimates for the regional and general industrial support, Scotland vote (class XV vote 3) for 1991–92.

  Agency Funding
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the gross provision for the Scottish Development Agency in every year since 1979 and the non-training element of Scottish Enterprise for 1991–92 expressed at 1990–91 price levels.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: The information is set out in the table:
  376

  £ million

  1979–80

  174·8

  1980–81

  178·8

  1981–82

  162·9

  1982–83

  191·2

  1983–84

  172·6

  1984–85

  167·0

  1985–86

  176·2

  1986–87

  170·1

  1987–88

  166·9

  1988–89

  163·9

  1989–90

  171·0

  1990–91

  1179·0

  1991–92

  2170·0

  1 Estimated.

  2 Planned.

  Planned provision for 1991–92 is not directly comparable to provision for earlier years because it reflects an adjustment to the division of responsibility for environmental improvements between Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as compared with that which has existed between the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will itemise how the budget of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in 1991–92 are made up in terms of grant in aid, property income, equity income, training and other items.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: The composition of the budgets of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise for 1991–92 has yet to be finalised and is under discussion with the two bodies. The information will be shown in due course in grant-in-aid tables published as part of the supply estimates for the regional and general industrial support Scotland vote (class XV vote 3) for 1991–92.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the gross provision for the Highlands and Islands Development Board for 1991–92, expressed at 1990–91 price levels.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: The Highlands and Islands Development Board will be replaced by Highlands and Islands Enterprise on 1 April 1991. As well as taking over the functions of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, Highlands and Islands Enterprise will take over the Scottish Development Agency environmental function and the Training Agency's functions in the Highlands and Islands area. The notional amount allocated to former Highlands and Islands Development Board functions for 1991–92, expressed at 1990–91 price levels, is £50·4 million.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will receive disability working allowance because they were receiving(a) invalidity benefit alone, (b) severe disablement allowance alone and (c) a disability premium with income-related benefits within eight weeks before claiming disability working allowance.
  377
  Mr. Scott
  Estimates of the likely case load of disability working allowance can be only tentative. Our best estimate is that, once the benefit is established, about 50,000 people will receive DWA at any given point. Of these, around 25 per cent. will have been getting invalidity benefit (but not income support) before claiming DWA; 10 per cent. will have been getting severe disablement allowance (but not income support) before claiming; and 35 per cent. will have been getting an income-related benefit with a disability premium (alone or with invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance) before claiming. A further 30 per cent. will already be in work and will qualify because they have disability living allowance. Of the first two categories a number will have been receiving housing benefit or community charge benefit.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to extend financial assistance available to disabled people with special dietary needs.

  Mr. Scott
  The OPCS surveys showed that the existing extra costs benefits are providing good coverage of people with all sorts of disabilities, including people with eating, drinking and digestion disorders. The new disability living allowance with its lower rates will extend this to people not currently receiving benefit.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish estimates of the extra expenditure in gross and net terms if no tariff income from capital was taken into account in calculation of disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Estimates of the likely expenditure on disability working allowance (DWA) have been based on assumptions about behavioural changes among people who have a continuing entitlement to a long-term incapacity benefit, but who might take the opportunity offered by DWA to do some work. As a result, the projections can be only tentative and it is not possible to 378
  estimate with confidence the extra expenditure, either in gross or net terms, if no tariff income from capital was taken into account.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the average potential gains in income for recipients of the disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability working allowance will ensure that the great majority of potential recipients will be better off in work than they would be on incapacity benefits. However, it is not possible to predict with confidence the average gain in income for recipients.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions were held with the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. in respect of employers' liability to fund SSP payments on the introduction of statutory sick pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Ministers held a series of meetings with representatives of small business organisations, including the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, prior to the introduction of statutory sick pay (SSP). Among the matters discussed at those meetings was the method of compensating employers for payments of SSP.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make extra funds available for community care grants for his Department's local office in Perry Barr, Birmingham.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Consumer Goods
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the acquisition and ownership of consumer goods by pensioners in 1974, 1979 and 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on ownership of selected goods is given in the table. The data have been calculated using published data from the family expenditure survey. The year 1989 is the latest year for which these figures are currently available.

  Percentage of pensioner households with goods

  1974

  1979

  1989

  Telephone

  32·0

  49·8

  85·7

  Central heating

  31·9

  43·2

  70·1

  Fridge

  65·2

  84·0

  96·6

  Washing machine

  45·6

  55·5

  71·4

  Television

  89·5

  94·1

  98·0

  Car

  20·6

  23·1

  37·9

  Note: This covers the following types of households: one adult retired households mainly dependent on state pensions; one man and one woman retired households mainly dependent on state pensions; other retired households containing one adult; other retired households containing one man and one woman.

  Youth Training (Income Support)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of youth training trainees in receipt of income support during 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what was the average size of income support payments to youth training trainees in each of those two years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  State Pension Scheme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will express the cost of the Government's scheme on opting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme(a) in cost terms, (b) in terms of the pence reduction equivalent in income tax, (c) in terms of a reduction in poll tax, for the average poll tax payment and (d) in terms of a one-off cash payment to each pensioner.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Contracting out of the state earnings-related pensions scheme by virtue of an approved occupational pension scheme was introduced by the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. The Government Actuary's report on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1990 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1990 (Cm. 948) showed that in 1990–91 the total contribution reductions attributable to both occupational and personal pensions would be about £7·6 billion of which about £2 billion would be in respect of rebates and incentives for personal pensions. It is not appropriate to express these reductions in other ways because they relate directly to benefits that would otherwise be a charge upon the national insurance fund, and the fund in turn depends upon the levels of national insurance contributions and the benefit expenditure which it is required to meet.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to enlarge the power of pension fund trustees.
  380
  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received over the operation of company pension funds.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department receives representations from time to time on various aspects of company pension funds.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to secure the financial interest of company pension fund beneficiaries.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Social Security Act 1990 introduced a number of measures to help members of occupational pension schemes. Members will have a statutory right to annual increases for pension rights built up in the future. Schemes will have to use any surpluses to give increases up to a required level. On the insolvency of an employer, an independent trustee must be appointed to look after members' interests on the winding up of a scheme. From 1 January 1991 early leavers will get the whole of their preserved pension revalued.

  In addition, a pensions ombudsman will he able to assist individuals who have problems with their occupational or personal pension scheme.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what legal or regulatory frameworks exist to control the relationship of a company pension fund to its parent company.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Most occupational pension schemes are set up voluntarily by employers as irrevocable trusts and are therefore subject to trust law. In addition, schemes are required to satisfy the statutory requirements laid down by the Social Security Acts and the requirements For obtaining tax approval under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1958.

  Research
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) in cash terms and (b) deflated according to an appropriate index of higher education pay and prices the spending on social security research in each year from 1979 to the most recent year which his Department has funded in universities, polytechnics and other related institutions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Total spending on social security research in 1989–90 (the latest year for which information is available) was £937,000. Available information for previous years is published in the Cabinet Office annual review of research and development, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  Departmental purchasing information systems do not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. In 1987, a depart-mental purchasing supply directorate was established by
  381
  the Department of Health and Social Security. Before that date purchasing information in the Department of Health and Social Security was not consolidated and information for the financing year 1985–86 is not readily available. Information on purchasing expenditure for the financial years 1986–87 to 1988–89 is given in the table. The figures for the years 1986–87 to 1988–89 cover the Department of Health as well as the Department of Social Security. This information is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are in the Library.

  £ million

  1986–871

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Goods

  244·118

  268·348

  205·090

  187·835

  Services

  363·780

  375·463

  437·249

  487·181

  Capital

  53·741

  57·060

  99·348

  137·740

  Total

  661·639

  700·838

  741·687

  812·756

  1 Estimate.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many deaf-blind people have(a) claimed mobility allowance and (b) been awarded mobility allowance since April.

  Mr. Scott
  From 11 April 1990 to 30 November 1990, 747 mobility allowance claims have been made under the deaf-blind provisions. Of these, 347 have been awarded mobility allowance, 278 have been refused and 122 claims are currently being processed.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  For information from 1985–86 to 1988–89, I refer the hon. Member to replies given to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 19 December 1986 at columns 793–94, on 14 January 1988 at column 402 and on 13 March 1989 at column 30.

  Expenditure by the Department in 1989–90 is:

  £ million

  Press

  1·486

  Television and radio

  5·313

  Other (including leaflets and videos)1

  8·843

  Sound cassettes

  £212,000

  1 Separate information about expenditure on videos is not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Enzootic Bovine Leukosis
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to ensure that cattle with enzootic bovine leukosis are not imported into the United Kingdom.
  382
  Mr. Maclean
  Imported cattle must be accompanied by a health certificate, signed by an official veterinarian of the Government of the exporting country, confirming among other things that the animals originate from holdings which have been free of enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL) for up to three years, and that the animals have been subjected to the required testing for EBL, with negative results, before export.

  From 1 July 1991, rules governing trade between member states of the European Community will require that cattle for breeding and production must come only from herds which are officially recognised as EBL free.

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has any evidence that residues of dichlorvos are found in the flesh of farmed salmon.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 22 November to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos),Official Report, column 215.

  Cling Film
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to assure himself that the additives used in the manufacturing of cling film have been adequately tested and have been approved for use with all foodstuffs, including fatty foodstuffs; what requirements there are for product labelling with this information; and what assessment he has made of the risk to public health from this product.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment have recently advised that there is no evidence to suggest that the use of additives in cling films has caused harm to human health, and these films remain suitable for most food uses. However, for some additives the toxicological data are not yet complete and as a matter of prudence the committees have advised that cling films should not be used in certain applications, such as in contact with high fat foods.

  Manufacturers are recommended to label packs in accordance with the advice given in the food safety directorate's information bulletin, special edition, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. Curry
  Expenditure by this Department in each of the last five years on advertising in the press, radio and television and other promotion is as follows:
  383

  Advertising in the press (£)

  Advertising on television and radio (£)

  Other promotional material (£)

  1985–86

  29,000

  Nil

  656,000

  1986–87

  54,000

  Nil

  825,000

  1987–88

  12,000

  Nil

  693,000

  1988–89

  380,000

  Nil

  1,004,000

  1989–90

  116,000

  Nil

  2,385,000

  The figures for other promotional material include videos produced as part of overall public information campaigns. Separate figures for production of these and sound cassettes could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries which are refusing to import British milk due to concerns over BSE; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The only countries currently restricting imports of milk and milk products because of concerns about BSE are China, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the USSR.

  All the scientific evidence is that milk and milk products are quite safe to consume in any form. This view has been endorsed by the European Community's scientific experts and those of the Office Internationale des Epizooties (OIE). A recent OIE report on BSE recommends that exports of milk and milk products from the United Kingdom should not be restricted for either animal or public health reasons. We will continue to press countries which have imposed restrictions to lift them.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pesticide active ingredients applications he has(a) received, (b) approved and (c) rejected to date in 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is set out in the table in respect of applications for agricultural pesticides submitted to this Ministry for approval by the six Departments responsible. Applications for which the Health and Safety Executive is primarily responsible—non-agricultural pesticides—are not included.

  Number

  Received

  7

  Approved (fully/provisonally)

  6

  Approved for experimental use only

  1

  Rejected/Withdrawn

  5

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the active pesticide ingredients which have been reviewed since March 1989; whether they were subject to a full or partial review; whether the active ingredients were withdrawn fully or partially; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following agricultural pesticides have been reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides since March 1989. (F = Fully, P = Partially).

  Captafol

  (F) Phased revocation (final use ended 31 October 1990)

  384

  Daminozide

  (P) No change

  Dimethoate

  (P) Approvals amended

  Fenbutatin oxide

  (P) No change

  Fentin acetate

  (P) Approvals amended

  Fentin hydroxide

  (P) Approvals amended

  Iprodione

  (P) Approvals amended

  Alachlor

  (F) Approvals amended

  EBDC's

  (P) Approvals amended

  2-Aminobutane

  (P) Approvals amended

  At present 43 agricultural pesticides are undergoing review, of which four are partial reviews.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) active ingredients and (b) pesticide products are currently approved for use in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  The approximate number of pesticides currently approved for use is as follows:

  Agricultural

  Non-agricultural

  Active ingredients

  360

  90

  Products

  3,400

  1,100

  Full details are given in Her Majesty's Stationery Office publication "Pesticides 1990", a copy of which has been lodged in the Library.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the present levels of environmentally sensitive area payments; if he has any plans to revise them; and if he will also express them at 1986 prices.

  Mr. Curry
  The present level of ESA payments is shown in the table.

  ESA

  £/HA

  Broads

  Tier 1

  125

  Tier 2

  200

  Breckland

  Tier 1

  100

  Tier 2

  125

  Tier 3:

  UWS

  300

  CH

  100

  North Peak

  Tier 1

  10

  Tier 2

  20

  Pennine Dales

  100

  Shropshire Borders

  Tier 1

  30

  Tier 2

  80

  Somerset Levels and Moors

  Tier 1

  82

  Tier 2

  120

  South Downs

  Tier 1

  35

  Tier 2

  160

  Suffolk River Valleys

  Tier 1

  70

  Tier 2

  180

  Tier 3

  200

  Test Valley

  80

  West Penwith

  60

  It was made clear at the outset that it would not be appropriate for these payments to be index-linked, but that they would be reviewed after three years. The review carried out last year for those ESAs designated in 1987 concluded that the payments were still at broadly the right levels. I am now reviewing payments in ESAs designated in 1988, and I will be conducting a full-scale review of the scheme next year to determine the way forward.

  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reasons which lay behind the introduction of monetary compensatory amounts.

  Mr. Curry
  Monetary compensatory amounts were introduced in 1969 when it was agreed that changes in exchange rates should not immediately apply to the exchange rates used to convert common agricultural support prices into national currencies; they were intended to enable trade between member states to continue at common price levels and so prevent the distortions of trade that use of differing exchange rates would have encouraged.

  Flooding, River Severn
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the number of places along the River Severn where its banks have burst in each of the last 10 years and the number of dwellings, farms and small holdings that have been damaged as a result.

  Mr. Curry
  There has been no breaching of the banks of the River Severn over the last 10 years. All the flooding which has occurred over this period has been caused by banks being over-topped, consistent with the design which allows over-topping so that river levels can be kept below the point where serious urban flooding of large towns might occur.

  No precise data are available on the number of properties flooded over the last 10 years in the lower and upper Severn areas. In the tidal reach downstream of Gloucester, about 100 domestic properties and two caravan sites in this area have been flooded by high tides, some on more than one occasion. The incidence of tidal flooding along these banks will be reduced as the River Severn tidal defence scheme progresses.

  The extensive floods of last winter, which were of a magnitude that might occur once in 20 years, caused damage to about 350 properties in the upper and lower Severn flood plain. About 60 of these were commercial properties and a further six were farm houses. During this event, a total of 75 sq km of agricultural land was inundated by flood water. Most of the lower Severn over-topped its banks on both sides between Worcester and Gloucester and in the upper Severn upstream of Worcester over-topping occurred in approximately six places.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  Departmental purchasing information systems do not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. However, information on departmental purchasing expenditure from 1986–87 is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries to which high-tar EC tobacco is exported; and what quantities are involved.

  Mr. Curry
  EC published export statistics for tobacco are not broken down by tar content. Exports of EC tobacco in 1989 were 185,067 tonnes, some 13 per cent. of world exports of unmanufactured tobacco. Eurostat statistics giving countries of destination and quantities are available in the Library of the House.

  Ewe Premium
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the payments of the second instalment of the ewe premium have been made; and by what date these payments should be completed.

  Mr. Curry
  About 95 per cent. of all first and second instalments due to producers in England under the 1990 sheep annual premium scheme have now been paid. The outstanding claims will be passed for payment as soon as the necessary checks have been completed.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of this year's suckler cow premium payments have been made; and by what date these payments should be completed.

  Mr. Curry
  As at 10 December 10,135 payable orders had been issued to producers in England in respect of claims made under the 1990–91 suckler cow premium scheme. The scheme remains open to applications until 31 January 1991. It is not, therefore, possible to say what proportion of the eventual total this figure represents.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed in December 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Howard
  The number of people unemployed in the United Kingdom on the seasonally adjusted, consistent, basis was 1,055,000 in December 1979 and 1,636,100 in December 1989.

  Tourism (Northumberland)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will meet the Northumbria tourist board to discuss the development of tourism in Northumberland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My noble Friend Viscount Ullswater, who has responsibility for tourism matters within the Department of Employment, met officers and members of the Northumbria tourist board yesterday. At that meeting he discussed with the board its strategy for the development of tourism in the region, and its plans for its future role.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many responses he has received to his White Paper on employment and disability.

  Mr. Jackson
  By 30 November my Department had received 80 replies to the consultative document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities".

  Mr. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's policy towards the maintenance of the quota system for the employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  This Department operates the quota system in line with its legal responsibilities. It seeks to underpin the legal requirements on employers by assisting them through the disablement advisory service to improve the effectiveness of employers' recruitment, retention and development policies for people with disabilities. In the consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities" we have asked for comments on the merits and demerits of the quota system.

  Labour Statistics, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of insured workers in Lambeth SW2 and SW9 postal districts is unemployed.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are no official unemployment percentages calculated for postal districts. However, in October 1990 the numbers of unemployed claimants, not seasonally adjusted, in Lambeth SW2 and SW9 were 2,877 and 2,942 respectively.

  Offshore Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and relevant trade unions on the transfer of the safety responsibility of the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive following the publication of the Cullen report into the Piper Alpha disaster.

  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for offshore safety remains with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy until arrangements for an efficient transfer are completed. He has indicated that he is willing to have discussions with all those with something to contribute to improving North sea safety. I will adopt a similar approach. In addition, the structure and well-established procedures of the Health and Safety Commission will ensure that all relevant interests are consulted.

  Tourism
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much overseas visitors to the United Kingdom spend per year.

  Mr. Forth
  During 1989, the last full year for which information is available, overseas visitors to the United Kingdom spent £6,945 million.

  COSHH Regulations
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve the working of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  Mr. Forth
  The regulations have been in force for only just over 12 months are there are no reasons for considering any changes to the substance of the regulations. The Health and Safety Executive is monitoring their implementation and is continuing its substantial efforts to explain and enforce the regulations.

  Stallite Batteries, Barnsley
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action the Health and Safety Executive intends to take over the recent ombudsman's report on Stallite Batteries, Barnsley.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSIE) field organisation has been recently substantially changed as the result of internal efficiency reviews. This change, coupled with improvements to the administration of medical surveillance procedures introduced by HSE following its own internal investigation, have been acknowledged by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, in his report published on 31 October, as a satisfactory outcome to the complaint raised.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice he gives to training arid enterprise councils that are having difficulty meeting national standards of training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have had no representations from training and enterprise councils (TECs) that they are having difficulty meeting national standards of training. My Department is ready to offer advice to TECs on the national standards set out by industry.

  EC Labour Statistics
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the countries in the European Community with a lower rate of unemployment than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Howard
  Using the latest available internationally comparable figures, Portugal and Luxembourg have lower rates of unemployment than the United Kingdom. No figures are available for the unified Germany.

  Wages (Underpayment)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of prosecutions for the illegal underpayment of wages in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1989, there were nine prosecutions under the Wages Act 1986 for the illegal underpayment of wages.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the report, "Disability Employment and Training, Meeting a Demographic Challenge of the Nineties", produced jointly by SKILL and ILEA.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department's library already has a copy of the report.

  European Information Centres
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what financial support his Department currently provides for the European information centres in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  The European information centre network is a European Commission initiative to which the United Kingdom contributes 18·7 per cent. of the budget. In addition, my Department has a small budget for co-ordinating bi-annual meetings of the United Kingdom centres and will also be contributing to the costs of a feasibility study for a national European information centre advertising campaign. My Department also financially supports one of the four pilot centres which is based with the small firms service in London.

  Total Unemployment

  Rate

  6 months or more

  12 months or more

  Avon County

  23,421

  4·7

  10,255

  6,182

  Sunderland TTWA

  19,130

  10·4

  9,700

  6,282

  Medway and Maidstone TTWA

  10,915

  4·4

  4,032

  2,078

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what factors he lays down as essential for the attainment of improved health and safety at work.

  Mr. Forth
  Improving standards of health and safety at work requires the commitment of everyone concerned—employers, employees, the self-employed and so on—to comply with their duties under health and safety law. This demands a high degree of safety awareness at all levels, but especially among top management, and an effective management structure to ensure that health and safety risks are identified and appropriate measures taken to deal with those risks. There is no better introduction to the principles of health and safety than the executive's booklet "Essentials of Health and Safety at Work", revised earlier this year, and of which up to October 1990, 85,000 copies had been sold.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which Ministers have been responsible for health and safety at work since May 1979; and for how long each exercised the responsibility.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following Secretaries of State have had overall responsibility for health and safety at work within the Department:
  390
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what financial or other support his Department is planning in the future for United Kingdom European information centres.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department will continue to support the European information centres in the United Kingdom as outlined in my previous answer.

  Action Credit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the rate of unemployment and long-term unemployment defined as(a) continuously unemployed for a period of six months or more and (b) continuously unemployed for 12 months or more in the three areas chosen for the Training Agency's action credit pilot as pertaining in August 1989.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following information is available in the Library. Unemployment rates are not available for areas smaller than travel-to-work areas. Figures are given for the county of Avon and for the travel-to-work areas most closely approximating to the two other action credit pilot areas as at August 1989. The table shows the total numbers of unemployed claimants and the rate of unemployment and the number who have been unemployed for six months or more and 12 months or more for each area in October 1990, the latest available date. All figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Dates

  Secretary of State

  From

  To

  The Rt. Hon. James Prior

  9 May 1979

  14 September 1981

  The Rt. Hon. Norman Tebbit

  14 September 1981

  17 October 1983

  The Rt. Hon. Tom King

  17 October 1983

  2 September 1985

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Young of Graffam

  2 September 1985

  12 June 1987

  The Rt. Hon. Norman Fowler

  15 June 1987

  3 January 1990

  The Rt. Hon. Michael Howard

  4 January 1990

  Present

  In addition, Ministers who have had specific responsibility are listed in the table:

  Dates

  Minister

  From

  To

  Patrick Mayhew

  9 May 1979

  5 January 1981

  David Waddington

  6 January 1981

  7 January 1983

  John Gummer

  10 January 1983

  10 September 1984

  Peter Bottomley

  11 September 1984

  23 January 1986

  David Trippier

  24 January 1986

  12 June 1987

  Patrick Nicholls

  IS June 1987

  23 July 1989

  Eric Forth

  24 July 1989

  Present

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of applications in industrial tribunals were first heard within 12, 16, 20 and 26 weeks, respectively, of the receipt of the application during the month of October.
  391
  Mr. Forth
  The percentage of cases heard during October within 12, 16, 20 and 26 weeks respectively of the receipt of application were as follows:

  Weeks

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  12

  35

  49

  16

  59

  70

  20

  75

  83

  26

  89

  88

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many members of the Health and Safety Executive staff are directly contributing to CEN technical committees and the related working groups;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the adequacy of the travel expenses being made available to allow the inspectors involved with CEN technical committees and related working groups to attend all meetings where standards are developed and set (a) in the current year and (b) in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what sums have been made available by the Health and Safety Executive, in providing expenses for inspectors to travel in Europe to attend CEN standard-setting meetings;

  (4) on what occasions, and in respect of which CEN committees or working groups, an inspector has been prohibited from attending a CEN meeting because expenses money is not available;

  (5) which Health and Safety Executive national interest groups are involved with CEN technical committees and related working groups;

  (6) what steps are taken to ensure that sufficient resources are made available so that Health and Safety Executive staff may attend all relevant CEN technical committees and relevant working groups;

  (7) if he will list all the CEN technical committees and working groups which have been assessed as needing the involvement of the Health and Safety Executive;

  (8) if he will make a statement on the priority given to the work of CEN in respect of ensuring good standards of machinery guarding, to protect workers from injury.

  Mr. Forth
  In the last few years the Health and Safety Executive has made a large contribution to the work of CEN and the other European bodies making standards important to health and safety at work. This it does by participation in British Standards Institute committees shadowing work in CEN and as part of the United Kingdom delegation to CEN from BSI. A few examples of areas covered include simple pressure vessels, personal protective equipment and in particular machinery safety, where HSE is very conscious of the need to maintain high levels of protection.

  The importance HSE attaches to standards work is reflected in the growth in resources it has devoted to it, which has risen from around 27 staff years in 1988–89 to an estimated 50 staff years in 1990–91. Most of this increase is accounted for by the rapid growth in standards making in Europe, particularly by CEN.

  Although standards are a significant element in the safety system they are not the only part nor necessarily the most important. When it became apparent that the current rate of growth in standards making in Europe in
  392
  connection with the single market would lead to spending of 68 staff years in 1991–92, the HSE concluded that such a level could not be sustained without unacceptable damage to its other priorities for safety and health. The Health and Safety Commission subsequently decided that the resources committed to standards work should be held at around the present level of 58 staff years for 1991–92, and its reasons were published in its most recent plan of work, for 1990–91, and beyond.

  The executive does not allocate a specific sum to CEN work nor identify costs in this way but exercises firm control over all time, travel and subsistence costs. The task of making standards, especially those needed for the single market is, of course, primarily one for industry and the Government have long been encouraging United Kingdom industry to increase its involvement. Controlling this growth in standards work means that individual members of the HSE will not be able to attend certain CEN meetings. I have received representations on this point, but it is absolutely right that the executive should set its own priorities for staff work. The HSE staff engaged in this work are people with scarce specialist skills which are in great demand to support the executive's general role. Conflicting demands on such resources always mean that priorities must be allocated: sometimes very worth while relevant activities have to take their place behind other more important tasks. Further, it is often the case that an acceptable alternative to attendance at CEN committees is for the executive to play an active role in the relevant BSI technical committees.

  At present 50 individual staff are members of CEN/CENELEC technical committees and related working groups: there are many other staff taking an active part in BSI shadow committees, examining papers and providing support work. A list of the national interest groups involved with this CEN work is at table 1 and the CEN committees with which HSE is involved are at table 2.

  Table 1

  Health and Safety Executive National Interest Groups involved in CEN technical committees and related working groups

  Agriculture—Livestock and Stationary Machinery

  Agriculture—Crop Production

  Agriculture—Forestry

  Ceramics

  Concrete

  Cotton

  Drinks and Packaging

  Engineering "A"

  Engineering "B"

  Food

  Glass

  Molten Metals

  Paper and Board

  Plastics, Leather and Footwear

  Printing

  Quarries

  Rubber

  Woodworking

  Wool

  Table 2

  CEN Committees with an HSE input

  CEN BT 2

  CEN BT 3

  CEN PC 3

  CEN TC 10

  CEN TC 20

  CEN TC 23

  CEN TC 23 SC 1

  CEN TC 23 SC 2

  393

  CEN TC 23 SC 3

  CEN TC 33

  CEN TC 45 WGE

  CEN TC 48

  CEN TC 49

  CEN TC 53

  CEN TC 54

  CEN TC 58

  CEN TC 61

  CEN TC 62

  CEN TC 68

  CEN TC 69 WG 10

  CEN TC 69 WG 10–2

  CEN TC 69 WG 10–6

  CEN TC 79

  CEN TC 79 WG 7

  CEN TC 85

  CEN TC 85 WG 1

  CEN TC 85 WG 3

  CEN TC 85 WG 4

  CEN TC 93

  CEN TC 98

  CEN TC 102

  CEN TC 106

  CEN TC 108

  CEN TC 109

  CEN TC 114

  CEN TC 114 WG 1

  CEN TC 114 WG 2

  CEN TC 114 WG 3

  CEN TC 114 WG 5

  CEN TC 114 WG 6

  CEN TC 114 WG 7

  CEN TC 114 WG 8

  CEN TC 114 WG 10

  CEN TC 114 WG 11

  CEN TC 114 WG 12

  CEN TC 114 WG 15

  CEN TC 119

  CEN TC 121 WG 1

  CEN TC 121 WG 2

  CEN TC 121 WG 5A

  CEN TC 121 WG 5B

  CEN TC 121 WG 5B SWG 1

  CEN TC 121 WG 5B SWG 2

  CEN TC 121 WG 5B SWG 6

  CEN TC 121 WG 7

  CEN TC 122

  CEN TC 122 WG 1

  CEN TC 122 WG 2

  CEN TC 122 WG 3

  CEN TC 122 WG 6

  CEN TC 124

  CEN TC 128

  CEN TC 129

  CEN TC 131

  CEN TC 135

  CEN TC 137

  CEN TC 137 WG 1

  CEN TC 137 WG 2

  CEN TC 138

  CEN TC 140

  CEN TC 142

  CEN TC 143

  CEN TC 144 WG 1

  CEN TC 144 WG 2

  CEN TC 144 WG 3

  CEN TC 144 WG 6

  CEN TC 144 WG 7

  CEN TC 145

  CEN TC 145 WG 1

  CEN TC 145 WG 2

  CEN TC 145 WG 3

  CEN TC 145 WG 4

  CEN TC 145 WG 6

  CEN TC 145 WG 7

  CEN TC 145 WG 8

  CEN TC 146

  CEN TC 146 WG 1

  CEN TC 146 WG 2

  394

  CEN TC 146 WG 3

  CEN TC 147

  CEN TC 147 WG 1 M

  CEN TC 147 WG 2 M

  CEN TC 147 WG 4 C

  CEN TC 147 WG 5 M

  CEN TC 148

  CEN TC 148 WG 1

  CEN TC 148 WG 2

  CEN TC 148 WG 3

  CEN TC 148 WG 4

  CEN TC 150

  CEN TC 151

  CEN TC 151 WG 4

  CEN TC 151 WG 5

  CEN TC 151 WG 6

  CEN TC 151 WG 9

  CENTC 151 WG 10

  CEN TC 152

  CEN TC 153

  CEN TC 155

  CEN TC 157

  CEN TC 158 WG 1

  CEN TC 159

  CEN TC 160

  CEN TC 161

  CEN TC 162

  CEN TC 162 WG 2

  CEN TC 162 WG 4

  CEN TC 168

  CEN TC 168 WG 1

  CEN TC 168 WG 2

  CEN TC 168 WG 3

  CEN TC 179

  CEN TC 180

  CEN TC 181

  CEN TC 182

  CEN TC 188

  CEN TC 196

  CEN TC 196 WG 1

  CEN TC 196 WG 2

  CEN TC 196 WG 3

  CEN TC 196 WG 5

  CEN TC 196 WG 14

  CEN TC 197

  CEN TC 198

  CEN TC 200

  CEN TC 201

  CEN TC 202 N 6

  CEN TC 204

  CENTC 211

  CEN TC 212

  CEN TC 212 WG 3

  CEN TC 214

  CEN TC 214 WG 1

  CEN TC 214 WG 4

  CEN TC 231

  CEN TC 231 WG 1

  CEN TC 231 WG 2

  CEN TC 233

  CEN TC 234

  CEN TC 235

  CEN TC 236

  CEN TC 237

  CEN TC 238

  CEN TC 265

  CEN TC 266

  CEN TC 267

  CEN TC 268

  CEN TC 269

  CENELEC TC 17 A

  CENELEC TC 17 B

  CENELEC TC 17 D

  CENELEC TC 26 A

  CENELEC TC 26 B

  CENELEC SC 31 WG 1

  CENELEC SC 31 WG 2

  CENELEC SC 31 WG 4

  CENELEC SC 31 WG 6

  CENELEC SC 31 WG 7

  395

  CENELEC SC 31 WG 8

  CENELEC SC 31 WG 9

  CENELEC SC 31 WG 11

  CENELEC SC 31 WG 29

  CENELEC TC 44 X

  CENELEC TC 61

  CENELEC TC 61 WG 20

  CENELEC TC 61 F

  CENELEC TC 64 A

  CENELEC TC 74 X

  CENELEC TC 104

  TECs, Cheshire
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in setting up training and enterprise councils in Cheshire.

  Mr. Jackson
  Progress in setting up training and enterprise councils has been excellent. There are three TECs covering different parts of Cheshire. South and East Cheshire TEC has been fully operational since April 1990. The TEC covering Chester, Ellesmere Port and the Wirral is in development and due to become operational in April 1991, as is the TEC covering north and mid-Cheshire (NorMidTEC).

  Strikes
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of strikes in August.

  Mr. Forth
  It is provisionally estimated that there were 54.

  Advertising
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing the amount spent in each of the last five years by his Department on(a) advertising in the press, (b) advertising on television and radio, (c) other advertising and promotion and (d) promotion videos and sound cassettes.

  Mr. Jackson
  The amount spent in each of the last five years by my Department is as follows:

  Press advertising £ million

  Television and radio advertising £ million

  Other advertising and promotion £ million

  1985–86

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1986–87

  9·7

  25·4

  16·2

  1987–88

  7·5

  20·9

  14·4

  1988–89

  7·7

  14·8

  13·7

  1989–90

  7·8

  8·1

  14·2

  396
  Figures for press, television and radio and other advertising and promotion are not available separately for 1985–86.

  Figures for the amount spent on promotional videos and sound cassettes are included in the "other advertising and promotion category" and could be separated out only at disproportionate cost.

  Goods and Services
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish tables showing the amount spent on(a) acquiring and (b) commissioning goods and services by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  Departmental purchasing information systems do not differentiate between acquiring and commissioning goods and services. However, information on departmental purchasing expenditure from 1986–87 is set out in the annual reports of the Central Unit on Purchasing, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next expects to make an official visit to Nottingham to discuss the operation of his Department's programmes in the city.

  Mr. Jackson
  At present, neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I have any plans to visit Nottingham. The Department operates a full range of employment, enterprise and training measures in Nottingham.

  Deaf People (Interpreters)
  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide funding for an interpreter service for the deaf within the Employment Service.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 10 December 1990]: The Employment Service has recently published a summary paper on an evaluation of the special schemes which are designed to help remove specific barriers to work resulting from disabilities, together with a letter seeking comments. Any views on the funding of an interpreter service for deaf people in response to these consultations will be considered along with all other comments received.

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 Chester.

NHS Hospitals: Security Arrangements
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they have in mind to improve security arrangements in National Health Service hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government are gravely concerned about recent attacks on patients and staff in hospitals and we must be prepared to draw lessons from such incidents. Local management is and must be responsible for security arrangements at health service premises. This Government first asked local health authorities to develop a security strategy in 1982. Guidance in the form of the NHS Security Manual first issued in 1984 is currently being updated with government funding.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer which is only partially satisfactory. I declare my interest as the president of the friends of my local district hospital. Will central funding be made available for that very real problem which is of nationwide significance? Consequent upon that, is sufficient vigilance given regarding security people employed at local hospitals? Is the noble Baroness aware that at one hospital not far from where I live a 19 year-old was allegedly in charge of security? Will she ask her right honourable friend to look into those very real problems, while realising that hospitals with large grounds have problems? Will the Minister look seriously into those problems?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this topic. We are very seriously looking into the whole issue because there are particular problems. By their very nature hospitals should be accessible and policy has been directed at, for example, liberalising hospital visiting arrangements, particularly with regard to children.
Clearly, we cannot turn hospitals into fortresses; but there is no doubt that local managements are now fully aware of the need to provide the highest possible level of security commensurate with that freedom which is expected by staff and patients. In the light of recent tragic events, managers are reviewing procedures. It must be a matter for local managements, which are in the best position to decide what are local needs, to be responsible for that very important matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many of the health service associations agree that the Government are concerned about this matter? However, they feel that it is now necessary for
380
the Government to implement their recommendations, which have been accepted, and that more funds are needed so that security officers are properly trained and know exactly with whom they should liaise in the hospital for which they are responsible.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the report on violence to staff which was chaired in turn by my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lord Skelmersdale, the recommendations of which were accepted by the Government particularly in relation to staff training. We are fully aware of what is needed in that respect and we are certainly looking at the situation to ensure that procedures are being carried forward. The use of professionals in this sphere is becoming more and more important.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are right to be deeply anxious when patients and young children are attacked in hospital wards? While we are all in favour of greater security, can the Minister assure us that those attacks did not take place because of staff shortages and no supervision in the wards?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point because in none of the incidents reported has it been suggested that staff levels were in any way to blame. For example, when the St. Helier hospital incident affecting a young child took place on 14th October, the normal level of staffing was present on the children's ward for a Saturday evening; namely, two nurses for five patients. Normally the doors and windows of the children's ward are kept locked during the night, but at that moment the doors had been opened for a few moments to admit an emergency. That is when the lapse occurred.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister say to what extent security was a factor in the recent killing of the two surgeons at Pinderfields Hospital?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the murder of the two consultant plastic surgeons was a most appalling incident. My honourable friend the Secretary of State called for a full report, and we shall need to examine that. A summary report was prepared immediately, the following day. However, the police in question said that nothing physically could have been done to improve the security in that situation.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the question that the Minister has not answered relates to central funding which is vital to the whole matter. Each authority is anxious to obtain as much security as possible. Are the Government prepared to make extra moneys available for that purpose?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we all know the arguments regarding central funding and the desire of noble Lords opposite to obtain earmarking on all possible occasions. This is the kind of situation for which local management is responsible. As a result of the last public expenditure round more funds will be

381
available for devolution to local level. It is important that local management uses those funds in the best possible way to meet local needs.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in St. James's Hospital, Leeds, last week a woman was raped in the night? Many hospitals are very big. Would it not be a good idea to install panic buttons connected to a central point so that offenders could be caught?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, the position is being reviewed. I am aware of the incident at St. James's Hospital. Again, it is another deplorable incident. I am also aware that in many hospitals panic buttons are already installed partly as a result of the publication of the National Health Service security manual, which is under revision. A special conference on security is also due to take place. It was called by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts to review the position. Local managers are reviewing the situation, and I feel sure that panic buttons will be discussed. Referring to the specific incident, there is no doubt that the alarm call was given almost immediately by the nurse involved.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many hospitals employ outside contractors as security officers, and how many security officers are permanent members of staff? Would the Minister agree that staff have a greater sense of responsibility and loyalty to a hospital when they are permanent employees?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said earlier, it is obvious that the business of security is becoming increasingly professional. I am afraid that the cosy days of caretakers keeping an eye on things are long past. The department encourages health authorities to consider competitive tendering for a wide range of non-clinical support services, including security. In that regard we believe that outside contractors can be as efficient as if not more efficient than in-house security arrangements.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, has any survey been made by any party to ascertain whether there is any pattern to these extraordinary assaults in hospitals? It is the most strange place one can think of for assaults to take place. If there is a pattern it could perhaps give guidance as to the kind of security required.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is difficult. It appears to be a self-generating matter. The more incidents there are, the more publicity is given to them and unfortunately the more people are attracted to commit these crimes. As yet no final analysis has been made.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure the Minister accepts that there is a great deal of concern in the country regarding so many different kinds of violence leading to death caused either by self or by murder. I believe I heard the Minister's honourable friend Mr. Dorrell say this morning that the department was setting up an inquiry in this regard to make recommendations. I thought that I would recommend that. Is it not something that the department should
382
urgently do? Finally, would the Minister accept that the idea that security could best be carried out by outside contractors is one that many people on both sides of the House gravely doubt?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, whatever means are used to implement a security strategy, the important point is that responsibility lies with the local health authority, which is in the best possible position to know and cope with local needs. There is a variety of responses at both central and local level to the recent spate of incidents. There is no doubt that the whole situation will be thoroughly examined.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is there to be an inquiry set up, as I believe Mr. Dorrell suggested this morning?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the programme to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, refers, which he no doubt heard on the radio this morning, was in regard to mentally ill people. The inquiry to which my honourable friend referred related, I believe, to former psychiatric patients.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords,—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt for a moment. We have already spent 11 minutes on the first Question. I think that prudence suggests we move on even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, it is an important Question. The normal arrangement is that we allow 20 minutes for four Questions. Ten minutes for one Question is perhaps sufficient. Perhaps the noble Countess would like to ask her question and we can then move on.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what advice would the noble Baroness give to area and district health authorities which are shutting beds because they cannot meet budgets for this year, and at the same time are being asked to increase their security arrangements? Where will the funds come from? Perhaps more bed closures?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Countess emphasises the point I made previously, that it is extremely important that local health authorities should decide on their own priorities.

World Peace Council: Control
2.50 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any evidence to suggest that in 1981 and 1982 the World Peace Council and the British Peace Assembly were controlled by the Soviet Communist Party and supported the suppression of democracy in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Ministers have often expressed the view that, from its inception in 1950, the World Peace Council has been a disguised instrument of Soviet policy. A KGB defector recently confirmed that under Brezhnev, the council faithfully followed the directions of the international department of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee. A senior

383
WPC official admitted in 1989 that some 90 per cent. of the council's funds came from a single source, the Soviet Peace Fund.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is not my noble friend somewhat surprised that, in view of that, the CND has appointed as the new general secretary from January next year Mr. Gary Lefley, who was the communist national organiser of the British branch of the World Peace Council just before Mr. Gorbachev came to power?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I understand that Mr. Lefley was and may remain a member of the Communist Party and that he was a candidate for the national executive of the Communist Party of Great Britain in December 1983. However, it is not up to me to comment on his fitness for the post of general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while I do not dispute any of the facts given by the noble Lord in his reply, and in view of the great and welcome changes which have taken place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union since 1981, perhaps I may ask him whether he does not agree that this question is not relevant in any way. Does he not further agree that it is far more important that we should co-operate with our allies in sustaining Mr. Gorbachev and the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe rather than indulging in a witch hunt of this kind?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not think that we should indulge in a witch hunt. However, the World Peace Council is continuing its activities and it is that organisation which is living in the past.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is no question of a witch hunt? We are talking about an organisation of which it is said that many honourable Members in another place are members. That organisation has replaced an unfrocked priest by an unmasked agent. In those circumstances, does the Minister not agree that it is right to call attention to its activities?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I think it is perfectly proper.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that we are now in 1990 and not 1982? Will the Minister remind the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that recently the President of the USSR received the Nobel Peace Prize; that East Germany is part of a country which is a member of NATO and that in all the circumstances we should leave these matters where they properly stand and not spend a great deal of time digging up irrelevant nonsense about the past?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree that our relations with the Soviet Union have never been better. We look forward to the prospect of more co-operative relations in the future. However, the immense changes that have taken place in Europe came about because we were resolute and strong in our defence and not through the activities of CND.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to what has been said by noble Lords on the Benches opposite. Surely we should not shut our minds, ignore our ideas and turn our faces from the facts. Currently, the Soviet Union is building two or three times as
384
many tanks, aircraft and ships as the free world. It is also very active in subversive organisations. Does not the Minister agree that the more people who know that, the better it is for the future of our country?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is entirely proper that these matters are brought to light. I also agree that times have changed. I see no reason why the World Peace Council should continue its activities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister now saying that in future the Government will answer at the Dispatch Box for other associations and organisations whether political or non-political and for which the Government have no responsibility? If the Minister is saying that, it is a break with tradition both in this House and in the other place.
Lord Reay: My Lords, if the noble Lord has other organisations in mind he should try and see.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, while I recognise that questions asked in the Chamber go far wider than some of us are accustomed to, and while I fully accept that it is perfectly proper to draw attention to the activities of these bodies, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he agrees that the Government have no possible responsibility for them. Does he further agree that it would be very undesirable if the Government sought to interfere with them?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government see their responsibility as combating the activities of CND, among other organisations.

The Gulf
2.55 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What direct financial contributions have been made by the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan to the costs of maintaining British forces in Saudi Arabia.
Lord Reay: My Lords, none. However, Chancellor Kohl recently made an offer of equipment, training support and military air transport assistance within the NATO area which my right honourable friend the then Prime Minister welcomed. The Japanese Government have announced a contribution of 2 billion dollars to assist the multinational forces in Saudi Arabia. We hope that some of this money can be made available in support of British forces.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but does he not agree that because we are now spending £3.5 million a day on our forces, direct contributions should be made by countries which are debarred by their own constitutions from sending forces to the Gulf? Does not the Minister agree that those countries should therefore subsidise our forces directly? Does the Minister recall that in the 18th century Frederick the Great received from this country subsidies which were very useful indeed in restraining the French?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord wishes to take me back even further than I was drawn on the

385
previous Question. I shall not follow him as regards the last part of what he said. A substantial package of assistance from the Germans has now been drawn up. I hope that some of the detail will be announced later today. Final budgetary approval is currently being sought from the Japanese Parliament. Once that has been agreed, funds will be transferred to the Gulf Co-operation Council which will then allocate it to meet the costs of those countries which are contributing troops.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to a cost of £3.5 million a day. Can the Minister confirm that that has been the average cost since 2nd August? Can he also say what the estimated cost will be after 15th January?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have no figure for the estimated cost after 15th January. I can confirm that the current daily cost is around £3.5 million.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, given that the Government have sent armed forces to the Middle East in support of United Nations resolutions, can the Minister advise us whether any request for financial assistance has been made to the United Nations?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is asking me what further financial assistance has been made towards the United Nations. Apart from financial assistance in support of the international military effort, substantial economic assistance has been given by Germany and Japan, the two countries concerned in this Question. That assistance has been given to the countries most badly affected; namely, Jordan, Egypt and Turkey. The sums involved are quite substantial and meet our objective that countries not making a major contribution to the multinational force should provide the bulk of economic assistance to the countries affected.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I believe that the Minister misunderstood the question. If our troops are in the Middle East in support of the UN's position, why are we not asking for financial assistance from the United Nations?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am not sure that I know the answer to that question. This Question is specifically on the issue of contributions made by Germany and Japan and I have sought to answer that.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Foreign Office is pressing this point? One of the reasons it is difficult to reduce inflation in this country is precisely the great additional burden which our country agreed to carry. Does not the Minister agree that the other countries which are debarred from carrying that burden should contribute directly to our costs?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord again makes very forcefully a very good and strong point. I have nothing further to add to what I said. Germany is providing a substantial package of assistance and further details about it will be announced shortly. We also hope that we shall be able to benefit from the large sum of money which is being allocated by Japan.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not a fact that Germany and Japan would be among the countries with most to lose if Saddam were to succeed?
Lord Reay: In common with the rest of us, my Lords.

Police: Rostering
3 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to implement the provisions of the report on police working patterns.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, proposals to amend police regulations, in order to make provision for more flexible rostering and shift patterns, are shortly to be considered by the Police Negotiating Board.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that encouraging reply, especially as the report's proposals on performance measurement and efficiency checks on police throughout the country have been welcomed by senior police officers. I am sure that senior police officers would endorse what the noble Earl has said. These steps will provide an opportunity for the police to improve themselves and to have better representation made on their behalf to the general public.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that statement. I do not think it requires an answer as it was not a question.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for croaking at him this afternoon. Has he decided which seven police forces will take part in the experiment in relation to the Cullen report? As I understand the position, the report, which was drawn up by a Home Office police research unit, recommended flexible working. The Home Office has apparently said that seven police forces will take part in an experiment to make better use of staff. Has the noble Earl chosen the seven police forces?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a quite complicated issue. It was discussed at the Police Advisory Board the other day and will now have to be discussed at the Police Negotiating Board. My right honourable friend is deciding how best to progress the discussion on the principle of more flexible rostering. It is a complicated issue. I cannot give the noble Lord the answer which he seeks.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that people who suffer burglaries should be better informed as to what progress the police are making in recovering what has been stolen? Does he further agree that there is a need to have better community relations between the police and the general public? Is that not part of the report which the Home Office should implement?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that it is important that people should be given more information about burglaries. I agree also that there should be better community relations. The main onus of the report concerns how better to roster police time so as to use it more efficiently in order to benefit the police and the

387
managers. As an example, chief constables currently have to let officers know their leave times 12 months in advance. That is a fairly antiquated system.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it might be a waste of time to ask the police to tell people who have been burgled the progress in finding the loot? After all, either the police have found it or they have not. As someone who has been burgled 18 times, I do not want to be told by the police over and over again that they have not found my property.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the noble Baroness's terrible experience. If she had such an experience and the police found the burglar she would no doubt be delighted to know that they had found her property.

Select Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington) be appointed a member of the Committee of Selection and the Committee for Privileges in the place of the Lord Belstead and that he be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices and the Select Committee on Procedure of the House.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Census (Confidentiality) Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
As the House will be aware, this short Bill reinforces the protection which the Census Act 1920 affords to the confidentiality of census information. We are therefore keen to see it enacted in time for the census which is to be taken on 21st April next year. I am pleased that the Bill has passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House without amendment. I wish to thank noble Lords for enabling it to make such speedy progress.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Carter said at Second Reading, and as the Minister said just now, this is a non-contentious Bill—so much so that the Bill has reached Third Reading without amendment. I wish that all our Bills could be dealt with in that way.
I thank the noble Baroness for her letter in reply to a query which was raised by my noble friend on Report. It gave assurances that there would be protection against identifying individuals or groups
388
from a combination of characteristics in census statistics for local areas. I am fully satisfied by those assurances. However, I wish to raise one matter which has been brought to my attention. Clause 1(7) (iii) might prevent the inputting of information about individuals from aggregated census statistics. It is open to that interpretation. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the Bill extends its range to cover those bureaux which are licensed by the OPCS to analyse and disseminate census statistics in the commercial area. It is possible, though not clear, that Clause 1(2) (a) covers such bureaux. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would answer that point.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the matter to which the noble Lord refers is covered by Section 4 of the Census Act 1920 and is not covered by the Bill before the House. Section 4 is the lawful authority for releasing these statistics. When the tables are designed, the census offices take every practicable step to minimise any risk of disclosure from those statistics of information about identifiable individuals. The bureaux to which the noble Lord refers receive only aggregated statistics under Section 4. No information from completed census forms about identifiable individuals leaves the census office for 100 years.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is a very short Bill. It has only three clauses and deals solely with the arrangements under which employers can currently recover from their remittances of national insurance contributions the whole of the statutory sick pay which they pay out to their employees when sick. I shall of course come to the precise provisions in the Bill during the course of my speech but first of all it may be helpful to the House if I say a few words about the background to the Bill, which forms part of the Government's proposals for the restructuring of statutory sick pay—for simplicity, I shall refer to it as SSP—which began last year.
When SSP was first introduced there were naturally apprehensions about the impact of the scheme on the part of both employers and employees but it is fair to say that SSP has been largely a success story. Employers quickly assimilated SSP within their normal payroll arrangements and most operate the arrangements with very little difficulty. I accept that smaller employers who have to operate the scheme less frequently may on occasion find it more difficult. That is something which has concerned me in particular as the Minister in the Department of Social Security with

389
responsibility for deregulation. But I am pleased to say that a number of initiatives have been taken over recent years to assist such employers with improved guidance and training.
At the same time occupational sick pay coverage has continued to grow. Research carried out for the department in 1988 showed that 91 per cent. of employees—that is 20 million of the workforce—now work for employers who have occupational sick pay. That is an impressive figure. It reflects—in the Government's view quite properly—the acceptance by employers of much greater responsibility to cover short-term sickness among their employees.
Of course, not everyone is covered. Some new employees under particular schemes may have to serve a qualification period before becoming eligible. Those employees who do not, as yet, have any occupational sick pay cover tend to be mainly people in low paid or part-time employment. The Government have recognised this in the uprating proposals which I will come to in a moment.
There is no doubt that the growth of occupational sick pay schemes now means that for the great majority of those in work, the rates of SSP bear little or no relation to the amount they actually receive when sick. It is right that the Government should take account of this in the future development of the scheme and in considering the distribution of available resources within the social security system as a whole.
I turn now to the actual proposals announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his Uprating Statement. There are two elements in these proposals: the first concerns the reimbursement arrangements for employers, which is the subject of this Bill; and the second concerns the changes in the rates and earnings threshold for SSP, which will come before the House in due course when the main benefit uprating package is debated early in the new year.
As noble Lords will know, there are two rates of SSP. The lower rate currently goes to those employees whose average weekly earnings are between £46 and £125. The Government intend to increase this rate by the full RPI increase of 10·9 per cent. from £39·25 to £43·50 a week. This recognises that low paid and part-time workers on this rate are less likely to have occupational sick pay.
At the same time the dividing line between the two rates will be raised to cover the whole range of earnings bands within which employers pay the lower rate of contribution. This currently covers employees earning less than £175 a week, but will increase to £185 a week from April 1991. Finally, it is proposed that the higher rate of SSP will remain unchanged at £52·50 a week. Subject to parliamentary approval, these changes will take effect from 6th April 1991. These changes will reduce public expenditure by £100 million in 1991–92. But I should like to emphasise that the vast majority of employees will experience no reduction in the total payment they receive when sick. That is because of the way occupational sick pay interacts with SSP.
390
I shall now deal with the provisions in the Bill. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I first explain how the reimbursement arrangements work. They are very simple. Employers deduct from their regular monthly remittances of national insurance contributions to the Inland Revenue the gross amount of SSP which they have paid to their employees. If the total of contributions due is less than the SSP recoverable, the employer can similarly adjust his payment of PAYE tax. Since April 1985 an employer has also been able to recover in the same way an additional amount by way of compensation for the cost of the national insurance contributions payable on the SSP itself. This amount is fixed each year and is currently 7 per cent. of the total SSP paid.
I turn now to the precise proposals in the Bill. All the substantive provisions are in Clause 1. Clause 1(1) reduces the amount of SSP which employers can recover—by the method which I have just described —from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. Clause 1(2) enables the percentage to be varied by order and Clause 1(3) brings to an end the additional 7 per cent. compensation rate. Of the two remaining subsections in this clause, the first provides for regulations to enable employers to round the amount to the nearest penny and the second makes a consequential amendment to the 1975 Act relating to the transfer of funds between the Consolidated Fund and the National Insurance Fund. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with consequential and supplementary matters.
As indicated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, the change from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. reimbursement will result in public expenditure savings of £181 million in 1991–92, rising to £190 million and £197 million in the following years. The end of the 7 per cent. compensation rate will increase income to the National Insurance Fund by £71 million, £75 million and £78 million in each of the three respective years.
The main comments on the Bill have not unnaturally centred on the effect on employers. But before coming to these I want to emphasise that the changes in the Bill will have no effect on employees. The Bill does not change an employee's entitlement to SSP in any way.
In considering the effect on employers it is important to look at the SSP changes in the context of the proposed reductions in national insurance contributions—which I will come to shortly—which go a long way towards offsetting any additional cost to employers of the reduced reimbursement arrangements. But first of all, I wish to deal with the charge made in some quarters that the Government have in some way reneged on a previous agreement. I certainly acknowledge that the method of reimbursement was a major factor in the discussions which took place with employers and their organisations before SSP began in 1983. Employers' organisations—including the small business interests—pressed strongly for full reimbursement. I accept that, in the face of having to take on a completely new and untried commitment, this was an entirely reasonable approach. After detailed discussions the Government accordingly agreed to the

391
present 100 per cent. recovery system at the outset of SSP. But I believe it is equally reasonable, now that employers have been successfully operating SSP for nearly eight years and in the light of developments in occupational sick pay, that the Government should take a fresh look at the arrangements. That is what we are new doing.
Some employers have argued that it is not their place to provide short-term sickness cover for their employees. The Government cannot accept this; indeed all the evidence about the growth of occupational sick pay points in the opposite direction. I recognise, of course, that this may not be so easy for the small employer as for major companies. But even where smaller employers do not operate formal schemes, they often make discretionary payments or continue full pay for short spells of sickness.
One matter which has particularly worried business is that, the Government have some deep-laid plan to make progressive reductions in the percentage rate in the future. I can assure the House that the Government have no plans at this time to make further changes. We have, however, noted the concern on this point and my right honourable friend has undertaken that, should any order reducing further the reimbursement rate be brought forward—and, as I have said, we have no such plans—this would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I shall be bringing forward an amendment to that effect in Committee.
I turn now to the ending of the 7 per cent. compensation rate. This is intended to compensate employers for the cost of the national insurance contributions they pay on SSP itself. But it has been of only limited success. Despite widespread publicity, about 25 per cent. of this additional compensation is unclaimed. Moreover, in the interests of simplicity it is available on all SSP paid, even where the total payment is below the lower earnings limit and would not, therefore, have attracted liability for national insurance contributions. This is not a sensible arrangement and is why we have included it within this package of SSP changes.
The Government appreciate the concerns expressed by some employers and their organisations about the costs to them of the SSP proposals. Indeed my right honourable friend and myself recently met representatives of both the Confederation of British Industry and the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses to discuss the proposals. But let me try to put these costs into perspective. The reduction to 80 per cent. reimbursement from what is in effect 107 per cent. will cost £250 million. While that is not an inconsiderable sum, it represents only a tiny proportion—not much more than 0·05 per cent.—of the labour costs over the economy as a whole, which are running at well over £300 billion a year.
The precise effects on individual employers will, of course, depend on the level of sickness experienced in their workforce; but the implications generally are not expected to be significant. It should be remembered
392
that although SSP is payable for 28 weeks, the average spell of sickness lasts only three weeks. In 90 per cent. of cases, sickness is over within eight weeks.
Nevertheless, side by side with that package of SSP changes, the Government propose to make substantial reductions in employers' national insurance contributions liability. Although those reductions extend across the whole spectrum of national insurance contributions, they have been particularly weighted to help smaller employers.
It is proposed that the standard rate of contribution payable by employers will be reduced from 10·45 per cent. to 10·4 per cent. and the lower rates of 5 per cent., 7 per cent., and 9 per cent.—which currently apply in respect of employees earning up to £175 per week—to 4·6 per cent., 6·6 per cent., and 8·6 per cent. respectively. Those changes will reduce employers' costs by some £250 million, and, as I said earlier, should be particularly helpful to smaller employers, whose employees are likely to be among the less highly paid. For employees earning £70, £120 or £170 a week the employers' weekly national insurance contribution will reduce by 28p, 48p and 68p respectively.
From the discussions we have had, and representations received, it is clear that not all employers have appreciated the significance of those reductions, and it may be helpful if I give one or two examples. If we take an employer with five employees all earning £170 per week, and one employee had three weeks' sickness during the year—which matches the average incidence of sickness—the extra cost in SSP would be £82·41 assuming the employer makes good the difference between the higher and lower rate of SSP with occupational sick pay. But the annual saving to the employer on his national contribution liability as a whole would be £176·80, putting him £94·39 in profit. Even if the same employer had a further employee, also sick for three weeks, he would still make a saving of £11·98. If we look at an employer with 20 employees, again all earning £170 per week, who had four employees off sick for three weeks each, the annual saving would be £377·56.
I do not wish to give the impression that the employer will always come out on top. Clearly, the net effect of the proposals cannot be neutral for all employers. There will be variations depending on individual levels of pay and sickness. For example, the contribution reductions are not so advantageous in respect of employees earning £185 or more a week. But, particularly for small employers, they go a considerable way towards offsetting the costs of the SSP changes and in some cases will more than fully offset them.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear both in his up-rating Statement and in the debates on the Bill in the other place, the Government firmly believe that it is better for available resources from the taxpayer to be concentrated on those least likely to have occupational provision or on other areas of social security for which employers cannot provide. That is what we

393
have sought to do in the overall SSP package we are now proposing, an important part of which is included in the Bill. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
3.24 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill. But the thanks from these Benches and, I suspect, from other parts of the House stop there. The Bill may, as he said, be one of the shortest of the Session; it is certainly the meanest we shall have to consider. Indeed, the Bill may constitute something of a record. It has three clauses only, yet it has encountered the unanimous opposition of the CBI, the Forum of Private Business, the National Federation of the Self-employed and Small Businesses, the Low Pay Unit, the Disability Alliance, the TUC, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Retail Consortium, the National Farmers' Union, the Building Employers Federation, the Association of Independent Businesses, the Institute of Directors, and the Union of Independent Companies. And that is only today's post!
Similar proposals in an earlier Bill were strongly criticised by the Social Security Advisory Committee. However, the committee was unable to comment on this Bill as it was rushed through the other place with one day only between its Second Reading and its Committee stage and Third Reading. The Government allowed just three weeks between the publication of their proposals and the Bill completing all its stages in another place with, as I understand it, no consultation at all with outside bodies before publication.
The Bill's purpose is clear. As the CBI has said, it contains a fundamental reform of the current partnership between the state and employers in delivering an important social security benefit. It undermines the basis of the agreement between employers and the Government on the administration of the statutory sick pay scheme. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that the Bill would have no effect on employees, because the up-rating associated with it removes 3 million employees from eligibility for the higher rate of statutory sick pay. As a result, some 600,000 people stand to lose an average of £9 per week while sick. Those 600,000 are in addition to the 300,000 who lost £13 a week as a result of the changes in sick pay entitlements from April this year. No fewer than 5 million people have had their entitlement to SSP reduced in the past two years.
All this is happening because the Government are relying upon employers to make up the difference, without knowing how many employees are covered by occupational sick pay schemes. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, Mr. Nicholas Scott, on Second Reading in another place on 26th November said:
"We do not know exactly how many people are covered by sick pay schemes" —[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/90; col. 708.]
394
The Minister referred to the statistics contained in a 1988 survey showing that 91 per cent. of the workforce work for employers who provide some occupational cover. That does not mean that 91 per cent. of the workforce are covered. Let me take a simple example —a company has 100 employees but its sick pay scheme has exclusion clauses to omit part-time workers or includes a requirement for a qualifying length of service. One could well find that half the employees only are eligible for the scheme although 100 per cent. of the employees work for a firm that has a sick pay scheme.
We know that 55 per cent. of firms with fewer than 10 employees have no scheme and that 96 per cent. of all businesses employ fewer than 20 people. More than 10 million workers may not be fully covered by occupational sick pay schemes.
Why have the Government introduced the Bill? The answer is simple. It was given by the Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Newton, on Second Reading in the other place. He said:
"The proposals were developed during the public expenditure round that led to my uprating statement on 24 October. They were examined in terms of the context, pattern and the priorities of social security expenditure as a whole" —[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/90; col. 644.]
In other words the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must have told the Secretary of State that if he wanted some money to increase child benefit and help the disabled, he would have to make savings elsewhere in his budget. The savings are clear: £100 million in 1991–92 from failing to uprate the higher rate of SSP and by reducing the numbers eligible for the higher rate—a government technique for helping to finance improvements in some benefits by penalising, in this case, the low paid, especially women, who are off work through sickness. It has been estimated that 60 per cent. of all losers will be women. I fear that there is nothing new in that technique. Of the £26 billion that has been given away since 1979 in higher rate tax cuts, no less than £22 billion has come from pensioners by breaking the link between earnings and pensions.
While on that point, it is worth remarking that so long as the up-rating of SSP is linked to the retail prices index and the eligibility threshold is linked to earnings, it is a matter of simple logic that SSP will become a smaller and smaller proportion of the earnings lost through sickness. As a result, more people will become dependent on means-tested benefits. I said earlier that 60 per cent. of all losers would be women. It has been suggested that this could be regarded as discriminatory and might be contrary to Community law.
Why do we have to have a Bill to save the Government £100 million? The saving could have been achieved simply by adjusting the up-rating and changing the earnings threshold —all done through regulations and orders. The answer is simple. It appears in Clause 1(2) and Clause 2(3). The Government have taken the power to reduce employers' reimbursement of SSP from 100 per cent.

395
to 80 per cent., as the Minister said. Then they take the power to make all further adjustments which are bound to be downwards, by regulation or order.
A multitude of employers' organisations are concerned—rightly—that exactly the same thing will happen with statutory sick pay as happened with redundancy rebates. This year, the cost to employers of £258 million will be met by reducing employers' national insurance contributions by £250 million. These are the global figures. The incidence will vary greatly between individual employers and will bite particularly hard on smaller employers.
The Government have refused to undertake that future reductions in employers' reimbursements will he matched by corresponding reductions in national insurance contributions. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, Mr. Scott, made it clear at column 703 on 26th November, replying to a Question regarding the linkage between reimbursement of payments by employers and the level of national insurance contributions. He said:
"These are two quite separate matters. As my right hon. Friend said, this year we are considering the changes in the context of reductions to be made in national insurance contributions. The two, however, are not linked. The only statutory duty that my right hon. Friend has when looking at the national insurance fund is to consider the incomings and outgoings from the fund and to decide what changes may be necessary".
At column 704, he said:
"I have already said that we have no plans to alter, either up or down, the rate of reimbursement for statutory sick pay".—
that is after the reduction from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent.—
"This year we have looked at the proposed changes in the light of reductions in national insurance contributions. We should have to see where we were if we ever wanted to consider changing the rate of reimbursement either up or down".
That quotation gives the game away completely. The Minister was careful to say that the Government had no plans at this time to change the relationship between reimbursement and national insurance contributions.
I fear that deep down the Government—or at least the Government so recently espoused of Thatcherite principles—just do not believe that the state has a primary responsibility for sick pay. They see it as simply another example of a public service which could be better done by private insurance. I wish to ask the Minister whether he agrees that the state has an obligation to the sick and that the Government should not seek to shift that responsibility to employers who already have to carry a fair proportion of the cost of sickness. Of course, as the Minister said, they tried this once before in 1980–81 and had to retreat in the face of considerable opposition from employers' organisations. The Government have certainly learnt from that experience. This time the Bill is being rushed through without consulting outside organisations, the Social Security Advisory Committee or the department's internal advisory committee.
396
I appreciate that it is the convention in this House that Bills should not be denied a Second Reading. However, I urge the Minister and his department to think very hard between now and Committee stage to see whether the worst aspects of the Bill and the associated changes in benefits can be lessened. Many organisations have asked for the Bill to he withdrawn while consultations take place. Will the Minister agree to this? After all, we see a positive epidemic of perestroika and glasnost emanating from the new Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Ministers are tripping over each other to distance themselves from the policies they were so loyally defending only three or four weeks ago. Surely this Bill is a good example of just the sort of hasty and ill-considered legislation which should now be the subject of—to coin a phrase a fundamental review so that the effects on hundreds of thousands of small employers and millions of the low paid can be properly researched and dealt with.
As I said, every employers' and employees' organisation that has examined the Bill has urged the Government to think again. The disability organisations are concerned about the effects on the employment of disabled people. Lower paid workers and those in industries with no organised sick pay schemes stand to lose disproportionately. Women in work will be particularly penalised. For all these reasons, from these Benches we urge the Government to think again.
3.35 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble kinsman on his speech introducing the Bill. I have not heard so able an example of the sedative style of ministerial speaking since the speech with which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, wound up the debate on the Second Reading of the poll tax Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has drawn attention to the Secretary of State's remark that the Bill originated during the public expenditure round. Perhaps that is of some help in explaining the quite remarkable lack of consultation to which attention has been drawn in all quarters. I am delighted to hear that a meeting has taken place with the Confederation of British Industry; better late than never. It should have happened before the Bill was drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has drawn attention to the absence of any report from the Social Security Advisory Committee. That is because last year in paragraph 15 of Schedule 6 to the Social Security Act, we authorised the Government to vary statutory sick pay by order. Noble Lords on the Opposition Benches are occasionally accused, in matters of liberty, of having a vigilance too eternal to be taken seriously. On this occasion our vigilance was not great enough. For my part, I am sorry for it.
It is not only a matter of an extraordinary lack of consultation; it is also a matter of the quite remarkable haste with which the Bill has progressed. It is less than a year since I drew attention to the speed with which the Education (Student Loans) Bill was progressing. I did not expect, before the year was out,

397
to find a controversial Bill progressing with a speed that makes the pace of that Bill appear to have the stateliness of an elephant.
It is 35 days since the Session began and this Bill is now receiving its Second Reading in the second Chamber. It is not as though it were uncontroversial. It is not only controversial between the parties; it has caused great discontent among a vast number of organisations, including many of those representing industry: the Confederation of British Industry, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, the Retail Consortium and even the Institute of Directors. Moreover, when a Bill causes equal offence to the Labour Party and the Institute of Directors, perhaps we need to wonder whether something has gone badly wrong.
Mr. Michael Meacher, speaking on the Bill in another place —and I paraphrase—said that the effect of the Bill on employers was of greater concern to Conservative than to Labour Members. That remark does not apply to Liberal Democrats. The effect of the Bill on employers is of deep concern to us. We understand that wealth has to be created before it can be spent. One of our biggest objections to the Bill is that it tends, no doubt in a small but none the less significant way, to increase industrial costs.
We have some difficulty in dealing with the Bill for it is part of a larger restructuring of statutory sick pay, including changes in rates which are to be brought about by order. Therefore, we can only address a small part of the iceberg here. However, we should not forget the existence of the rest; nor should we forget the existence of the clause which authorises the Minister to vary the rate of reimbursement to employers by order. I heard and was deeply grateful for the assurance given by my noble kinsman that any proceedings under that heading will be taken by affirmative instrument. However, I wish with respect to ask my noble kinsman and the Secretary of State to think about whether that is quite enough.
I also heard and welcomed the assurances given not only by my noble kinsman but also by his right honourable friends the Secretary of State and Mr. Scott that these provisions are not part of a deep-laid plan and that the Government have no present plans to take advantage of that clause. Naturally I accept those assurances completely, but, as I accept them, I do not see the need for the clause which authorises the Government to vary reimbursements further by order. If the Government do not wish to use that clause, why have they included it in the Bill?
Considerable anxiety has been expressed, notably by employers' organisations, as they fear that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge. I accept that it is not so intended, but if Ministers wish to dispel that impression they will not be successful unless they remove the clause which authorises them to vary the rate of reimbursement further by order. I hope that before we reach the Committee stage my noble kinsman and his right honourable friends will think seriously about that matter.
398
There is considerable doubt as regards the effects of the Bill, especially the effect on public spending and in terms of net cost to employers. I fully accept that employers are in part compensated by the reduction in the rate of their national insurance contributions. However, my noble kinsman said only that the Government would go a long way towards meeting employers' costs. He did not undertake to meet all the costs. Employers are losing not only the 20 per cent. reimbursement at the higher rates but also the 7 per cent. payment which was understood to be a payment to meet administrative costs. Therefore, there is a net loss to employers of 27 per cent. That is certain.
As my noble kinsman admitted, the cost to the employer is a variant because it depends on the rate of sickness in a particular company and in any one year. That is a matter which cannot be entirely predicted. Therefore, anything that any of us say about costs must include an element of conjecture. This measure means that a much greater proportion of the risk of sickness will fall on the individual employer. That seems to me to offend against the basic principle of insurance that there is sense in trying to spread the risk. It seems to me that the Government are on a fork. Either the Bill will place increased costs on employers—in that case, I believe it is undesirable—or it will not reduce public expenditure. If public expenditure is not to be reduced I do not understand why the Government wish to pass the Bill.
I have also heard, notably from the Private Business Forum, a great deal of complaint about the increased burden of administrative work that is being placed on small employers in particular. Small employers complain about a constant deluge of forms. In talking about the discouraging effect that this has, the Private Business Forum is beginning to sound at times like the teachers. That reminds me of the fact that there are more areas now where there is a greater need to roll back the frontiers of the state than there ever were in 1979. What will be the ultimate effect of this measure on our industrial situation and on the balance of costs? We must remember that the measure is being introduced at the beginning of a recession. That does not seem to me to be the right time to increase industrial costs.
There has been a great deal of complaint—a lot of it from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—about the tendency under the present legislation for employers to dismiss workers who claim statutory sick pay. Good employers will not do that, but one of the reasons I regret having this Bill is that it will, in effect, place the burden that is evaded by bad employers on to good employers. That seems to me to be a bad balance to set.
There is also much anxiety—this should worry the Government—about the number of employers who do not pay national insurance. I cannot see that this Bill will do anything other than increase that number. The Government and sick people will lose from that situation. The concept of awarding full compensation at the lower rate but not at the higher rate will create an effective poverty trap at a level of £125 a week. As soon as a wage is raised to £126 a week the employer

399
has to take on the whole business of administering and paying compensation for the final 20 per cent. of the sick pay. Therefore, the Bill will have the effect of holding down wages. It will also have an effect on hard-pressed companies—during a recession there must be hard-pressed companies—in increasing the drift to part-time work. That is contributing to the growing problem of an underclass. That is revealed in the social security budget, though it is concealed elsewhere. It is a factor which should worry all of us.
The final effect that I believe the measure will have in this area is that suggested by the Minister's honourable friend, Mr. Thurnham, who suggested that, when faced with increased costs, employers would simply increase prices and pass on the costs to consumers. In that way the Bill will increase inflation. That phenomenon has been shown to occur as far back as records exist. I do not see why this measure should be an exception to it.
The Bill is designed to rob Peter to pay Paul, but it will be less effective at paying Paul than at robbing Peter. It will be more effective at increasing industrial costs than at saving public money. The net effects of this Bill will do more harm to public expenditure than we imagine. Employers who do not pay national insurance will diminish public revenue. Wages stopped at a level of £125—if I am right about that—will result in a cost as the Government will have to increase expenditure on housing benefit. Due to the way housing benefit is administered I cannot even attempt to quantify that sum, but that does not mean that it will not arise.
If the measure leads to dismissals, as many of us fear, that again will increase the number of people who depend on the social security budget. It will tend to increase social security spending, not reduce it. Those who turn to part-time work may well find that they have to be supplemented by income support. There will also be an increase in public expenditure by that route. By the time all those effects are considered it is almost certain that the Bill will result in higher public expenditure rather than a saving. The effect of the Bill will al one and the same time be to increase industrial costs, public spending, unemployment and inflation. That is four own goals in a three-clause Bill. That is a record which takes some beating.
3.49 p.m.
Lard Birkett: My Lords, I rise to introduce briefly one small caveat into the thinking on the Bill. I refer to small businesses and, in particular, small and slightly irregular businesses. As your Lordships may have predicted, I have in mind the theatre, and the arts in general.
Lest your Lordships should think that this is yet another bleat from a highly articulate, but forever complaining, industry perhaps I may say that I do not believe that it is. When I speak on behalf of the theatre and the arts in general I may unwittingly also be speaking on behalf of a number of small businesses.
I can understand the noble Lord, Lord Henley, speaking about the effect of occupational sick-pay schemes in respect of the whole of industry. I can
400
appreciate that very large firms have very effective and protective schemes and that is not simply because they are large. There is a temptation to believe that the big boys can get it right and the small ones cannot. I believe that it is a matter not so much of size as of predictability. So many of the great industries of this country are not only large but they are predictable. Short of disasters occurring within the market, their output and their employment policies are predictable and they can develop occupational sick pay schemes that suit them very well. I welcome the, fact that they do.
However, in the case of the theatre or the arts in general, matters are very much less predictable. Any small theatre will find that its business will expand and contract like a bellows in the course of a year. Its employment position is totally unpredictable; its income is unpredictable; and its financial position is always unpredictable. It is not just that theatres and the arts in general are always in trouble; it is very difficult for them to arrange schemes that will protect them against the effects of the Bill.
Like every other speaker on this Bill, I cannot rely on statistics. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, pointed out in his introductory remarks, one cannot apply statistics to the Bill because one would have to predict the level of sickness, the numbers who will be sick and for how long. That is impossible. Therefore statistics will not help us. However, I have a shrewd feeling that the arts in general and the theatre in particular will suffer from the Bill, although I cannot predict whether they will suffer in the first year in view of the quid pro quo outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I was relieved to hear the noble Lord say that there was no plan further to reduce the statutory amount that an employer can recover. Although I recognise that the Minister said that there are no plans at present to use the provision, if one wanted to invent a wedge with a very thin edge at one end and a very thick one at the other, Clause 1(2) would provide a model. I respect entirely what the noble Lord said on the subject. However, I hope that that provision will not be used, because if the 20 per cent. reduction were to become 40 per cent., 60 per cent., 80 per cent., or indeed the facility was removed entirely, the people about whom I am talking—and I am sure that there are far more of them than I wot of, and I speak on behalf of many small businesses—would be very seriously hurt indeed.
When the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replies to this debate—or during other stages of the Bill—I hope that he will think very carefully about what action he can take to make sure that the small and unpredictable element of industry is not hurt, as I fear it may be.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not believe that any of your Lordships would accuse me of being a regular exponent of increased public expenditure or an inveterate opponent of economy measures. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I am sorry that the Bill has come forward this afternoon. I had rather hoped, and I still nourish the hope, that the new

401
Government would give further consideration to the matter. I find myself agreeing entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said on that point. Since presumably there is no question of a Committee stage until after the Recess, that will give some time for the Government—no doubt after listening to the advice which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will give them—to consider further whether it is right to go forward with this measure at this time.
I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two, but I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, that the effect of the Bill will be most harsh and harmful for the smaller business. I rather doubt that its effects will be confined to the theatre and the arts, although one would naturally regret it in those areas. It will plainly make matters more difficult for the small employer who is unable to spread the cost of the measure over a large workforce. That is one objection to it.
Another objection is the timing. There is no dispute that the measure will increase industrial costs. It must do so, otherwise from where will the increased gain to public funds referred to in the memorandum attached to the Bill come? It will come from employers who, having allowed for a reduction in their ordinary National Insurance contributions, will be paying more in contributions generally. I cannot imagine a worse moment for introducing the measure. Whether or not we use the formidable word "recession", we are obviously in a position in which trade is becoming quieter, perhaps as a necessary consequence of the necessary measures against inflation. However, it is a fact, and surely this is the wrong moment—when employers are struggling to keep going in a failing market—to add unnecessarily to their costs.
My noble friend will no doubt say that it is a very small addition in proportion to employers' vast costs. He said something to that effect in his opening speech. However, that does not deal with the principle. If it is wrong to increase employers' costs then it must be wrong to do so, even by a small amount, at this particular time.
That again is a factor which entitles one to ask the Government to think again about the Bill. It may well he that in the better economic circumstances, which we hope and believe will arise in a year or two, the case for the Bill will be stronger than it is now. However, we are being asked to deal with the Bill now, against the background of the present situation. That seems to me to be a very serious objection to it.
As an old hand in social security matters, I hope that I may be allowed to say that it seems to go against the principle of the old sickness benefit—which was a National Insurance benefit to which the employer and the worker, and the Treasury, contributed—to add deliberately to employers' costs by denying them 20 per cent. (or, as has been pointed out, a total of 27 per cent.) of the refund to which they are entitled under the present system. Surely that is going against that principle, a principle to which I attach a certain amount of importance.
402
I come now to the question of the amount. What is the particular merit of 80 per cent as against 75 per cent., 85 per cent. or any other figure? Have the Government just thought of a figure and put it in? What is the intellectual and logical justification for reducing the repayment to the employer by 20 per cent. (or 27 per cent.) to 80 per cent? What is the justification?
I do not like Clause 1(2) which enables that figure to be altered, admittedly up or down, by statutory instrument. That provision is made less alarming as a result of the concession which my noble friend very properly announced that the statutory instrument concerned would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I am very grateful. He said that the order would allow the rate to be altered up or down. Can he conceive of any circumstances in which this Government would increase the reimbursement from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent., or back to 100 per cent?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I can indeed, my Lords. This is a very reasonable government. They have just heard a most reasonable speech advocating just that from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I hope that they are listening to what I consider to be a no less reasonable speech from one of their regular supporters. I can imagine that a thoughtful government would say, "Well, perhaps we are". As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will realise, that is the very point that I made at the beginning of my speech, expressing the hope that the Government will give further consideration to the matter and not press on with the Bill at this time.
I wish to make only two other points. First, I suppose that making the employer pay 27 per cent. of the SSP for sick workers may result in some employers becoming more suspicious or careful, whichever way one wishes to look at it, about employing people who have doubtful health. Obviously, employees liable to sickness will appear likely to cost more than employees apparently in good health. Any discrimination against employees who have had bad luck with their health would be a very serious matter socially.
Neither your Lordships nor the Government can shrug off the criticism of all the organisations throughout industry which have objected to this measure. They include the CBI, the Retail Consortium and all those the noble Lord, Lord Carter, very properly quoted. They are unanimously critical of the Bill. It is rare to find those organisations—even the Institute of Directors figures among them—totally in agreement with each other. However, they are unanimous on this point. Surely a thinking and caring government will think and care about the recommendations made by the people who are in the front line—those responsible for running industry who will be exposed to the additional costs and who have warned the Government of the unfortunate effects.
I do not expect that when he replies my noble friend Lord Henley will do other than give his usual robust defence of a government measure. He always does: I often find that the worse the measure the stronger and

403
more robust is his defence, by which I mean that he is a good advocate, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. I hope that after this debate has been studied in the department, as I am sure it will be, and with the Christmas Recess looming, some serious thought will be given to whether it makes sense in the present circumstances to defy the views of practically everybody in industry and at this time put forward a measure which must increase industrial costs. I beg the Government at least to think again.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, after the speech by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am sure that I do not want to add to the woes of my noble kinsman Lord Henley. However, although my noble kinsman presented the Bill to your Lordships as the best thing since sliced bread, I have to tell him with the deepest regret that I like neither sliced bread nor his Bill.
I do not usually speak at Second Readings because, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I generally support the main principles of most government Bills. I am also aware that the powers that be do not pay a great deal of attention to what your Lordships say. I realise that it is extremely difficult to tempt the Government with a carrot. To take the words out of my noble kinsman's mouth, the Government are not a donkey. So, sadly I find it necessary to wait until Committee stage when it is sometimes possible to use the threat of a stick.
However, I dislike the principle of this Bill. Therefore I am somewhat at a loss to know how it can be amended bar sending it right back. I dislike the principle of the Bill for a number of reasons, most of which have already been mentioned. My main objection is that I believe, in common with most noble Lords, that it is the state's main job to protect and help those less fortunate in our society, which in this case are the sick. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised that point in the form of a question. I shall be interested to hear what my noble kinsman has to say in reply.
I have to remind him that in 1982 the Government asked, begged and cajoled employers to take over the state's role in administering sickness benefit. The employers did so, albeit reluctantly, and they did it without payment, though it takes work to carry out. Having taken advantage of that offer, the Government now say, "Not only will you administer sickness benefit but you will also part fund it, and just watch out because by instrument we may well increase your share of the funding in the future". The point was made by my noble kinsman Lord Russell. If ever there were a case of my father chastising you with whips and I chastising you with scorpions, this little, mean Bill is one.
Just in case my noble kinsman has not yet got the message, I conclude by repeating that I do not much like his Bill. I hope that he will enjoy the Committee stage when the Christmas spirit that all your Lordships have today been displaying with characteristic warmth will have gone and we shall be back in the cruel light of 1991.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I must begin by apologising for a brief absence which was due to an unavoidable clash of commitments. I heard most of the speeches and confess that I agree with most of the speakers from both sides. So far there has not been much support for this nasty little Bill.
The noble Lord who has just spoken mentioned the Christmas spirit. I had been about to say that just thinking about the Bill has ruined my Christmas. It is certainly in the wrong spirit for me. In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that this short Bill represented a success story. The scheme had been a success. All of us have been inundated with letters from employers. I have never had so many letters from employers as well as organisations such as the CBI and the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses which represent thousands of firms and companies, let alone those which are concerned with the employees. None of them says that this has been a success story. In fact most of them infer that they have been conned. They accepted and agreed to it in the first instance because they were to be reimbursed 100 per cent. for the expenditure and administration and so on. They now find that, after the scheme has run for the first 12 months with their help and co-operation, cuts are beginning and it will cost them money. In some cases it will cost £11 per employee per week. That must rebound on the employees. It will affect everybody throughout commerce and industry. If that is considered a success story, I do not know what the noble Lord considers a failure. This is a shocking Bill.
All the organisations mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carter, and accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, have made strong objections with which I do not disagree. I cannot recall whether the Low Pay Unit and other trade union organisations which represent the employees have been mentioned, nor the people who represent non-trade union employees and so on. They have all seriously examined this measure. I am amazed that a government which will turn somersaults and bend over backwards to offer discussions, meetings and conferences to consider that other abomination the poll tax and seek consensus did not even consult on this Bill. They did not even consult their friends on the Bill. That says something about the Government. I would have referred to the "previous" Government but it is the same Government. They have changed one fellow, but I have seen no real changes and I do not think there will be any. We ought to be careful about going ahead without consultation.
Since the Government were elected in 1979 they have not shrunk from using their massive majority in the other place —the elected dictatorship, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, once called it—to steamroller through much ill thought out, badly drafted legislation. I do not blame the draftsmen. They have been working under tremendous pressure on many Bills since 1979. I have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, speak on this point on many occasions. At one stage, before Bills and orders

405
came to the Floor of the House a committee would consider them for omissions, badly drafted clauses and so on. Such consideration has disappeared. We now have the most appalling legislation; and this legislation has been altered 18 times since it was introduced in 1983.
There is something wrong when a new Bill has to be changed so regularly. It ends up as unacceptable to anyone except the Front Bench spokesman for the Government. The Government know that they have a massive majority which will jump when the Whips say "Jump". That position may be coming to an end. I have the impression that the nearer we are to an election the more anxious that massive majority becomes about retaining their seats. Those seats include small businessmen, employers, the CBI and so on. The massive majority is becoming worried. The statutory sick pay legislation will have to be dramatically altered before it is acceptable to the other side.
I have been involved with social security for God knows how many years. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was responsible for social security. I have crossed swords with him, if not personally certainly in correspondence, a number of times. However, since I have been in the House, and since 1979, we have been given a number of reasons why such Bills have been introduced. First, it was to simplify the system. If noble Lords believe that, they will believe the three card trick.
The system was certainly in need of simplification. However, if anyone considers that it has been simplified he should ask the claimants. The forms have become longer, with more questions. People at the bottom of the pile are frightened out of their wits the moment they are offered a form. When I was a Member of another place, they used to come to me on the constituency advice service. They needed most help with filling in the forms. One form is 22 pages long. They do not have to answer all the parts, but one has to explain to them which parts they do not have to answer. It is more complicated than when the form consisted of one or two pages. Do not let anyone kid us that the form is simpler and not as complicated as it was. That is not true.
Secondly, it is said that changes have been made to target the right people. Ask the targets, my Lords. Ask the unemployed. Ask the pensioners who are now struggling to pay two poll taxes when they used to pay only one rate bill. Ask the youngsters who have lost benefits. Who are the targets these changes were meant to benefit? Ask employers who are now worried about their prospects as the cuts begin to bite into what was supposed to be their share of the administrative costs and so on. If these were the people who were targeted, the changes have missed the mark by a mile.
Thirdly, it is said that the changes were to reduce dependency on state benefits. The only way that such changes have reduced dependency is by cutting off many people from the benefit system. I refer to youngsters who receive no benefit and students whose
406
benefits have been cut. They have been pushed into someone else's area—either to the banks for a loan, or on to the streets to beg. The fact that there is no cushion is part of the cause of the increasing social problem. Dependency on benefits was to end. When I referred to ending dependency I meant that a quality of life was to be produced so that people would not have to depend on benefits. It would require the production of more jobs or whatever, and certainly not kicking the problem around, pushing it from one area to another, away from the Government.
The Statutory Sick Pay Bill is another example. It will mean that many people do not receive sick pay. Many of the smaller employers cannot afford to operate the system. We know too that many women, mostly working part time, have clauses in contracts with hours that can be adjusted to make sure that they do not qualify for SSP or for anything else. The employer may say, "Now that it will cost me money, I want to make sure that as many people as possible do not qualify". As another form of reference, the employer may ask, "What is your health record?". He will not ask, "How good are you at the job? How skilled are you? How long have you been employed? What is your experience?". He will ask, "How many times have you been sick", because that affects the profits of the business. It will now be a criterion for employment and will affect people's jobs.
That factor will especially affect the disabled. They have a hard enough job now. If that factor is added—they have to have so many weeks sick pay which will be funded by the employer—the employer will not be too keen to fund it. We all know also about the problems of the blacks and other ethnics. They have a difficult enough job now. If one adds the statutory sick pay factor their position will become impossible.
I do not believe that a government with knowledge of those factors—everyone knows them; they are not something new that I have invented—would have produced such a Bill unless there was something perverse about them. With the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hope that the Government will reconsider the Bill before they push it through, using their majority.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, stated that 90 per cent. of employees are now covered by other occupational schemes. That has been denied by everyone who has anything to do with industry. It is not true. It is almost like the Gallup polls which forecast recent results within the Tory Party.
I do not know who the people were who were questioned in those polls. I do not know how the percentages changed every night. Overnight there was suddenly a reduction in the Labour Party's standing in the polls from 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. in front to 11 per cent. behind. But nothing had happened except that the Prime Minister had changed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I ought to correct him. He stated that I said that 90 per cent. of employees were covered. I made it quite clear—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, picked it up—that it was indisputable that 91 per cent. of employees

407
work for an employer who provides occupational sick pay. At no point did I say that that meant that all those people were necessarily covered. I shall deal with the point when I wind up. The noble Lord ought to be clear that I did not say that 90 per cent. of employees were covered.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept that. Nonetheless it is a fine point.
Earl Russell: My Lords, since the point has arisen, will my noble kinsman retreat further to the position taken by the Secretary of State? He stated only that a substantial proportion was covered by occupational schemes. That is at col. 634 of the Official Report of Second Reading.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend said that a substantial proportion was covered. What I cannot answer, and my right honourable friend would not be able to answer, is how many people are covered. We know that 91 per cent. of employees work for employers who provide such schemes. We do not know how many are covered. I am certainly prepared to stick to what my right honourable friend said: a substantial proportion.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, we hear that intervention with interest. However, the fact remains that the government rationale was based on that 91 per cent. figure. No one involved has accepted the Government's rationale for the basis of the scheme.
I wish to say one word about the future of the scheme. It is worrying many people. If this scheme is allowed to continue it will involve total privatisation. It was the first part of the social security system to be privatised. In effect that part was handed over to the employers. The intention now appears to be to give the responsibility to them completely, gradually whittling away compensation, reimbursement and so on, without providing an adequate response to their problems and queries.
The intention is to privatise and that is totally against everything that the Government have said. I remember the Secretary of State, as he then was, saying that this would be better than Beveridge. The Government were really going to improve on the Beveridge system. It is a complete farce when at the same time they are privatising everything from start to finish. If the Government are beginning to privatise this and make sick people the target of that kind of treatment, it is about time that they not only took this Bill away but went away with it and had a general election. It is absolutely disgraceful.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too think it would be better if this Bill did not exist. It is interesting to me that every noble Lord who spoke criticised it, including my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter with his great experience as a Minister for pensions and as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He ought to know what this is all about, perhaps better than the, department of state which put the Bill forward. My noble friend told us that he believes that it is not a
408
suitable Bill to bring forward at this time, and every noble Lord who spoke gave different examples of how certain people will be badly hit by it.
It is also significant that not only has the CBI objected to the Bill—as your Lordships know, I am principally advised by the CBI in what I say to your Lordships on this sort of matter—but practically every other professional body or trade association that is concerned also considers the Bill to be unsuitable and not one with which your Lordships should be burdened.
Perhaps the most telling point against the Bill, above everything else and apart from the detail, is the fact that at this stage of a Parliament (even if we are to have an election) it has been rushed through. It is a tiny Bill with great implications, as many noble Lords have made clear to us, but it has not only been rushed through but has been rushed through without consultation. That is quite wrong in this sort of area when the Government are seeking to add to the assistance that they are asking from employers in carrying out one of their schemes.
When this system was first introduced nearly 10 years ago great trouble was taken by my right honourable friend Norman Fowler to discuss it very thoroughly with employers because the Government were asking employers to do something for them. I remember very well that, at the beginning, the employers thought that this was just something else they were having to do for government and for which they were not being paid. Whatever we say about 100 per cent. or 80 per cent. reimbursement, the cost of administration has never been paid for. Therefore, the Government rely very much on the employers to carry out this work and it is quite wrong that the Government should not take the same trouble now that they took 10 years ago to get the employers to agree on what they are trying to do.
The Government may have some good arguments, but I must say that my noble friend the Minister did not put forward any convincing arguments, and no other noble Lord who spoke appeared to think so either. If the Government have a good argument they must have it out beforehand with the CBI and with other interested bodies because they are asking those bodies to do something for them. They are changing the rules.
When the CBI and the employers generally agreed to this 10 years ago the administrative responsibility for SSP was agreed to only on the basis that all SSP payments were fully reimbursed. That was accepted by the Secretary of State at the time. My right honourable friend Norman Fowler, then the Minister, said: "Accordingly, the Government have decided to accept the case for 100 per cent. self-deduction".
That argument applies now just as it did in 1981. I come back to the point that if you are changing the rules of a game in which you are asking somebody to share a duty you must discuss the matter beforehand. The Government have not done that and it is quite

409
wrong that this Bill should be not only rushed through the other place at an extraordinary rate but presented to this House without discussions having taken place.
I honestly do not believe that it will help if discussions take place at this stage, because this is a very simple Bill and there is not much room for amendment within it. If discussions take place between now and Committee stage, which is possible, it does not seem to me that it will be easy to get some sort of agreement without accepting that the basis of the Bill is wrong, because there is not enough of it to come to some sort of agreement about minor change. In any case, it has gone through the other place so it will perhaps say, quite reasonably, that it has already approved the Bill in its present form.
Consequently, I say very strongly, as other noble Lords have said, that the best thing the Government can do is to drop this Bill at this stage. If they wish they can then have discussions with the employers' representatives during the next month or so and present us with another Bill which retains the parts of the previous legislation which were accepted by employers 10 years ago and with which they are still prepared to continue.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend said that he speaks with the authority and backing of the CBI, but I hope he is not saying that even at this late stage, if the Government are prepared to have consultations, he will recommend that they do not take place. I should have thought that half a loaf was better than none. If he cannot get complete agreement then consultation on parts must be good. Perhaps that is what my noble friend said and I misunderstood him.
Lord Mottistone: No, my Lords. If it were a more complex Bill I would entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls; but because of the nature of the Bill I doubt whether consultations would prove worth while. I hope that employers do not enter into consultations with their hands tied behind their backs and that the Government do not say, "Sorry, we had consultations, but we did not come to agreement"; or, "We persuaded the CBI" on something about which it patently would not have agreed. That is what I fear. I do not like consultations when there is nothing very much on which to consult; but I fear that that is the case.
It would not be helpful to say much more. Most of the important points on which the CBI has advised me were made by noble Lords and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in particular. I very much hope that the report of this debate will be carefully read with an open mind, accepting the arguments that have been put forward and not attacking them on the lines, "We must shoot this down and we must shoot that down", and so on. That is not the way to tackle this problem. I hope that something similar to what I have suggested is what the Government, on reflection, will consider to be the best course. If so, I wish them a very happy new year.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, most of the points that I wished to make have been raised but I join noble Lords who oppose the Bill. There is the thin end of the wedge aspect. The Minister stated that the Government had no plans for removing the clause that affects 80 per cent. reimbursement to employers. I cannot see that a future government would not take advantage of that situation in order to try to reduce the amount. If there are no plans for making such an alteration, then I see no need for provision to be made by statutory instrument. There is a lack of assurance from the Government that they will continue to offset the extra cost to employers by reduced national insurance contributions after 1991.
The state has an obligation towards the sick; it should not seek to shift that liability to employers. There is a great concern in agriculture because of the very few people employed in that sector. The same applies to small industries. The Minister stated that the average period of sickness was three weeks. However, it could be longer. I have had experience of one man who was off sick for about a year. Any small business, particularly a farm, employing only one person, would face a catastrophic situation. I know of one company with wholly-owned subsidiaries in Holland and the USA that is now considering transfer of its manufacturing to Holland in order to avoid an increased burden in this country.
The Minister's explanation has allayed some fears. It was a masterpiece. But concern about the Bill is overwhelming. I join those noble Lords who believe that the Bill should be withdraw or redrawn.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise for not putting down my name to speak; I am grateful for being allowed to intervene. I wish to refer to Clause 1(2). It is an example of what is known as a Henry VIII clause. Henry VIII was enabled to alter an Act of Parliament under the Statute of Proclamation; in other words, by ministerial order.
Much has been said already about the Bill. I wish only to point out that Henry VIII clauses were started in approximately 1890 with the first bureaucratic surge. Mostly they were innocuous. But after 1918 they occurred with increased momentum. This aroused considerable concern at the time and the Donoughmore Scott Committee was appointed. It reported in 1932.
When a similar clause was resurrected two Sessions ago—the matter has since been considerably discussed—I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to state that the Government generally accepted the recommendations of the Donoughmore Scott Committee. One recommendation was that this type of clause should not be introduced into legislation unless strictly necessary. If however, it was introduced it should feature in the Explanatory Memorandum and should be justified to the hilt by the Minister.
It is extraordinary that today we have heard virtually nothing by way of explanation or

411
justification. There is nothing in the Explanatory Memorandum; there was nothing in the otherwise admirable speech of the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill. Therefore, I am bound to ask whether the Government are reneging on what I understood my noble and learned friend to state during the last Session. Is there any justification for stating that this provision is necessary? If not, so extraordinary a constitutional provision and aggrandisement of executive power at the expense of more normal parliamentary function should not be in the Bill, as has been pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Gisborough.
Again I ask the noble Lord: what is the necessity for the clause? What is its justification? Are the Government standing by the noble and learned Lord's assurance to your Lordships that in general the recommendations of the Donoughmore Scott Report will be observed?
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and a number of other noble Lords who have spoken. This is a very nasty little Bill that is being rushed through without any consultation at all.
As the Minister stated, the intention is to restructure the statutory sick pay scheme. One wonders whether the Bill is a first step on the way to doing away with state involvement in the payment of sick pay to workers and the placing of the entire burden upon employers. The Minister states that there is no intention of doing so at this time. I made a particular note of the words "at this time". However, what will happen in the future? It is not surprising that in current circumstances many people are deeply suspicious of the intention.
It has not been denied by the Government that if the whole package—not simply the Bill—goes through, approximately 3 million workers stand to be worse off than under the present arrangements. Those workers, earning between £125 and £185 per week, will lose eligibility for the higher rate of SSP. As my noble friend stated, 600,000 of the 3 million are expected to claim SSP during the year. They will lose £9 a week each. Sixty per cent. of the losers will be women. Therefore, it is not surprising that on this side of the House we do not accept the Minister's contention that employees will not be worse off.
There are other problems. The Government propose to freeze the higher rate of SSP. That will not be welcomed by employers—and there are some good employers—who make up employees' pay to full salary when they are off sick. The value of the higher rate SSP is being eroded gradually so that such employers will have to pay more money in making up full pay as time goes by. As has been stated on all sides of the House and as the Minister explained the Government intend to cut reimbursement to employers from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. The Minister claims that the Government will be compensating employers for that loss by reducing employers' national insurance contributions.
412
The organisations representing small businesses are not impressed. They point out that when they first agreed to administer SSP they were told that they would not have to fund it. Now they will clearly have to bear some of the cost. Moreover, an administrative burden is involved which is particularly onerous for small businesses that do not have computerised records or numbers of skilled administrative staff.
The Government are always prating about burdens on business when it comes to protective legislation for employees. That is one of the basic reasons for their opposition to much of the social charter. It is incredible that they should nevertheless be quite happy to impose the extra burden proposed in the Bill. Presumably, there are basic ideological differences with previous administrations, both Labour and Conservative, which believed in a comprehensive system of national insurance. As representatives of small businesses have said, they cannot take on the burden of sick pay for employees. One commented, "We thought that that was what national insurance was all about".
Although willing with some reluctance, as I understand it, to take responsibility on behalf of its members for the original SS pay scheme, the CBI did so because it believed that the Government would continue with 100 per cent. reimbursement and because stability was expected to result from the practice of up-rating in line with inflation. That practice is being departed from as regards the upper rate. As we have said, that means that employers making up to full pay will inevitably have to pay more.
The Government maintain—we have heard it again today—that 90 per cent. of work forces are now covered by occupational sick pay schemes. The Minister clarified that in reply to an intervention. It is however a crucial point that not every member of a workforce which has an occupational scheme is covered by the scheme. A scheme at a particular company may cover some employees and not others. Typically, part-time and temporary employees will not be covered. Senior career staff may be covered, but not manual employees. Moreover, as my noble friend pointed out, schemes vary in the length of time provided. Some may provide sick pay for only six weeks; thereafter the employee will be dependent on SSP.
As we know, the Government will make some savings as a result of this mean measure. However, I question whether those savings are worth the problems which arise from the proposals in the Bill. There are already problems with the present operation of the SSP scheme. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has cases of clients who have had difficulty obtaining the SSP from employers under the present arrangements. Often people are dismissed when sick, particularly if they are relatively short service employees or part-time workers. Such employees are often not in a position to challenge the refusal of the employer to pay the SSP.
Low pay organisations view with anxiety the Goverment's proposition to reduce reimbursement to 80 per cent. They believe that this may cause

413
employers to look more carefully at applicants' sick records when taking on employees. Those applicants who have had poor health and people with disabilities may find it increasingly hard to obtain employment and, once they have it, to keep it. That may mean further discrimination against people who are unfortunate enough to be diagnosed as HIV positive.
The Equal Opportunities Commission raised an interesting point based on the expectation that women are more likely to be disadvantageously affected than men. As I said, about 60 per cent. of those affected are likely to be women because of their predominance in low paid employment. The EOC wonders whether that may be indirect discrimination since more members of one sex than the other are affected. If so, we may see an interesting reference to the European Court.
There was no reason to depart from simple up-rating in line with inflation. Even so, there is a disadvantage. Since sick pay is intended to replace in part lost earnings, it would be far more appropriate to up-rate in line with the wages index. Up-rating in line with the RPI has already meant an erosion in the actual rate of SSP relative to wages.
This is a nasty little Bill—residual Thatcherism even after the lady has departed. Where is the new caring conservatism of which we have heard so much? I was glad to learn, listening to the contributions of noble Lords opposite and in particular to the noble Lord Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is alive and with us in this House.
The Bill has been introduced at great speed. There has been no consultation with the body normally concerned—the Social Security Advisory Committee—or, indeed, with any other body. Also, the Government can make alterations without the necessity of primary legislation; simply by regulation. Although I am not well versed in these matters, I imagine that that was what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, meant when he referred to Henry VIII.
The Government should take away this matter and re-think it after consultation with all the appropriate bodies including the Social Security Advisory Committee. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, a vast range of organisations have expressed total opposition to the Bill. That applies not only to employers' organisations but also to low pay organisations, the Trades Union Congress, people looking after the disabled and so on. Very often, those objecting —for example, the Institute of Directors—are those who normally support the Government.
I have some sympathy for the Minister who seems entirely on his own in his support for the Bill. I regret that I cannot join him. I ask him to listen carefully to what has been said. I ask him to take away the Bill and think about it during the Christmas Recess so that we can be told that after consultation with all concerned, it is to be withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble kinsman Lord Russell commented on the style of my delivery in introducing the Bill to the House. He implied that there was a lack of commitment in my devotion to it. I assure him that that is not the case. I am perfectly happy to support the Bill and shall continue to do so. In fact at present I am suffering from a cold and hence my voice—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must make my apologies to my noble kinsman. I intended to convey no such impression and if I inadvertently conveyed it, I withdraw it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman. I was about to say that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter then went on to say that the weaker the case, the stronger would be my defence of the Bill. Again, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I shall defend the Bill as strongly as it deserves to be defended. However, I may not be able to make my points in as robust a manner as I would wish because of the problems with my voice.
We have had a very interesting debate on this short Bill although at times it may have appeared to be somewhat one-sided. The Government's view is that this is a fairly modest shift in the balance of short-term sickness provision between the state and business. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked why we had chosen 80 per cent. I repeat that that is a fairly modest shift in the balance. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether we accepted that there is a state obligation. I should stress that there is a balance of obligation between the state and business. Business quite clearly recognises that, as we have seen from the growth in occupational sick pay provision over the past 10 or 15 years.
There have been complaints that the Bill has been pushed through both Houses with undue haste. There have been complaints also about the lack of consultation. Obviously I can answer only for this House. However, I assure the House that as far as I know through the usual channels we shall return to this Bill in Committee after the Christmas Recess. There will be ample time for consultation with all parties and between myself and my right honourable friend in the Department of Social Security. My door will remain open to any person, or representative of any organisation, who wishes to see me. I believe I can say that the same applies to my right honourable friend. There is no intention to railroad the Bill through the House.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, do I understand the noble Lord to be undertaking that between now and the Committee stage there will be consultations not only with the party opposite and with other critics but also with outside bodies? Even at this late stage such consultations may well mitigate some of the details which have caused comment in this debate.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend was here when I made my opening speech. I clearly stated that my right honourable friend and I have already met representatives of the CBI and the

415
National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. I was attempting to explain that I was prepared to see whomsoever and whatsoever organisation between now and Committee stage if they wish to discuss the matter with me. My door and the door of my right honourable friend will remain open for that.
I then went on to say that there was no intention to railroad the Bill through either House. It is important that the Bill reaches the statute book at a suitable time to enable employers to make the necessary arrangements with their payroll systems before next April.
I was asked why the Government did not consult employers regarding these proposals in advance of my right honourable friend's uprating announcement. As the House will be aware, these changes form part of the department's overall programme of expenditure. By the very nature of the way in which the process of public expenditure rounds operate—my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter will know this better than I—it was not possible to engage in prior consultations. However, we ensured that employers and their organisations were kept fully in the picture after the first announcement was made.
Concern has been expressed on a number of matters with which I shall attempt to deal. I hope that noble Lords will accept that in the time available I shall not be able to deal with all the points raised. I have already mentioned the point about the lack of consultation. The other major aspects include the question of our imposing an extra burden on industry at a time when it is not necessary; the question of the disabled; the question of employees who earn between £125 and £185 per week losing out; and, most importantly, there was the question of Clause 1(2), about which many noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, expressed considerable doubts. The complicated nature of the forms with which people have to deal was raised and coverage of operational sick pay in general. I shall cover many of those points, but I hope noble Lords will accept that there are time constraints and I am somewhat limited.
Turning first to the question of whether this is the right time at which to impose another burden on employers, I should like to reiterate the point I made in my introductory remarks. Leaving aside the offsetting reductions in national insurance contributions, the savings from the Bill amount to little more than 0.05 per cent. of the employers' overall cost of well over £300 billion. Having said that, if one takes at the same time the fact that my right honourable friend was able to make those reductions and that we have probably the most favourable corporation tax structure in Europe for small businesses, I do not believe that the burden on those businesses is too great.
I turn now to the question of the effect of the Bill on the disabled. It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Carter, that as a result of the proposals in the Bill employers would be less likely to take on people with disabilities or those who suffer
416
from bad health. I do not accept that. If employers are influenced by the health of potential employees, the small question of a slightly increased level of payment for statutory sick pay will not influence them. What will influence them is the availability of those potential employees to work. The employer will not take on people who will be absent for a considerable amount of time.
Turning to the levels of sickness experienced by the disabled, what evidence there is points in the opposite direction to their being bad attenders. People with disabilities in the main do not have bad attendance records. Their records are often better than for those of us who are more fortunate. The report Employment in Handicap published earlier this year indicates that half the people in work with disabilities took fewer than five days a year off work for sickness and treatment. Over a five-year period half had not had a spell of sickness or treatment lasting one month. There is nothing in the figures to suggest that the employment of a disabled person leads to significant extra SSP costs for the employer.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, went on to say that around 3 million employees would potentially lose out as a result of the uprating changes. They were referring to matters not in the Bill but which will be dealt with in the uprating order in due course. I should like to stress that of the 600,000 employees who are expected to claim SSP during the year, the vast majority according to our evidence will receive occupational sick pay and will therefore suffer no overall reduction at all.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House where the evidence comes from for that statement? How do the Government know that the majority of the 600,000 will be fully covered by the occupational sick pay schemes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe I referred earlier to the report that we commissioned in 1988 from IFF. As the noble Lord is aware, the evidence is that 91 per cent. of employees work for firms that are covered. I shall come to the point later regarding how many of those people are actually covered. Our contention is that the vast majority are.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of the level of SSP and reimbursement and the suggestion that it should be reduced to 80 per cent. We were asked what guarantee we could offer that it will not be reduced in the future. That raises the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, regarding what he called the Henry VIII clauses. He demanded, quite rightly, that I as the Minister responsible for the Bill in this House should justify clauses such as Clause 1(2). Before doing so I repeat the commitment I made in opening that we will be bringing forward an amendment at Committee stage to ensure that any order made to vary that will be by affirmative resolution and not by negative resolution.
I stress again that there are no plans at the moment to alter the reimbursement rate in future years. Nevertheless, in answer to what I regard as a hypothetical question I am sure that the House will

417
acknowledge that it would be unwise for me to offer predictions for the future. I remind the House that the question of national insurance contribution reductions is a separate issue in that they have been made possible following my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's annual review of the national insurance fund. Statutory sick pay is not a charge on that fund. Therefore, in future years the Secretary of State will always be able to take counter-balancing measures in the national insurance fund in respect of income and outgoings from that fund when considering the future level of employers' contributions. Whether that will allow further reductions it is impossible —indeed inappropriate—for me to say.
I turn to the provision potentially to reduce the 80 per cent. in future. It is prudent to have such a provision. As I said, we have no plans to make further changes. Given the continuing need to examine priorities across the whole spectrum of social security it is sensible to have a provision that is capable of being changed. The main principle—namely, that a percentage only of the SSP is recovered by employers—is covered in Clause 1 of the Bill. Variation of that percentage, which is not the main principle—that has already been covered—does not affect that principle. It was therefore considered that changes in that percentage rate should be governed by secondary legislation rather than by primary legislation just as a large part of the social security system, including nearly all the rates of benefit, is in a form which does not lock it into primary legislation. Therefore changes can be made by secondary legislation. Governments of all complexions acknowledge that as the sensible way to proceed.
Turning to the complication of the forms and the problems that that may create for small employers particularly—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—and the extent to which small employers have to cope currently with SSP, that is something in which I have taken a particular interest. It is Department of Social Security deregulation business. We are very concerned to keep burdens on business to a minimum.
Considerable strides have been made over the past two years to better inform employers about SSP. Following independent research, the guidance to employers has been completely revised and represented; a quick guide has been introduced which employers can now use in straightforward cases; a wall chart and video have also been made available. This new literature has been widely welcomed.
Other initiatives include a completely free telephone inquiry service directly for employers on national insurance contributions, SSP and SMP, plus a free seminar service. There is also a representative employers' panel that meets about half-yearly at the Department of Social Security and which consists of all kinds of employers. We take its advice very carefully on how to go about these matters. I accept that there will always be some of the smaller employees who will make mistakes because of the simple fact that they only have to operate SSP
418
infrequently; but I am confident that the initiatives we have taken, and will continue to take, will greatly reduce any problems that exist.
I turn now to the occupational sick pay coverage. I apologise for intervening during the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, but I thought it important to do so at that moment. I thought that the noble Lord was accusing me of misleading the House and implying that 90 per cent. of employees were covered. What I said in opening and when I intervened in order to correct the noble Lord was that 91 per cent. of employees work for an employer who provides occupational sick pay; that is to say, only 9 per cent. of employees at present have no opportunity at all to belong to an occupational sick pay scheme. As I said earlier, these will principally be low-paid or part-time employees, often working for small employers. As such, they will normally qualify for the lower rate of SSP which, as I said earlier, has been uprated by the full RPI increase of 10·9 per cent.
One criticism has been that even where an employee works for an employer with occupational sick pay he may not satisfy the employers' eligibility conditions; but we need to put this in perspective. The first point to make is that half the private sector schemes have no exclusion clauses at all. Secondly, in the remaining 50 per cent. of schemes our evidence is that by far the most common exclusion is on length of service, which varies between three and 12 months. Only if an employee in one of these schemes falls sick relatively quickly after he starts a new job will he be affected in practice. While this obviously will occur, I suggest the instances will be few, Indeed, most employers' experience is that incidence of sickness in the early weeks of a new job is lower than average.
The Government stick by their view that the vast majority of employees affected by the overall SSP package—that is, the proposals that will be in the forthcoming SSP uprating order as well as this Bill—will suffer no reduction in the payments made to them when they are sick.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I have read again the paragraph written by the Low Pay Unit on that aspect of the matter. It says that the figure of 91 per cent. is at the least deceptive and at the most deliberately misleading. Part-time temporary casual workers and home workers are more likely to be excluded from such schemes. Workers employed in small private firms are less likely to be covered. Manual workers are less likely to be covered by such schemes than non manual workers. That organisation does not accept the proposals. The people who work nearest to the victims of these proposals do not accept the Government's rationale and I agree with them.
Lord Henley: My Lords, yet again the noble Lord has accused me of misleading the House. I intervened to correct him and to make quite clear that I was not at any point saying that I was referring to 90 per cent. or 91 per cent. of employees. I was referring to the fact that 91 per cent. of employees work for firms that are covered and they had the opportunity to acquire some coverage. The noble Lord stated that the percentage of manual workers covered was much lower. I accept

419
that it is lower, but it has increased a great deal. I do not have the figure in front of me but I believe it is above 80 per cent.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord said that 91 per cent. of employees work for organisations with schemes. However, 40 per cent. of women work part time. Are they eligible for occupational pensions in the organisations which have schemes but which, in certain circumstances, do not allow part-time workers to join? That would put a different complexion on what the noble Lord said. It is not an intention to deceive, but it is a point that should be made clear.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall take advice and notify the noble Baroness. My information was that most of the exclusion clauses were based on the length of service and that that varied between three and six months. There are a great many part-time workers who are covered. I shall certainly take advice and write to the noble Baroness. It is obviously a matter to which we can return at a later stage of the Bill.
In conclusion, I re-emphasise what I said in opening this Second Reading debate. Government strategy must be to concentrate available resources on those people who are least likely to have occupational provision and in areas of social security which employers cannot be expected to cover. The provisions in this Bill form part of that strategy and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Vocational Training: ECC Report
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Vocational Training and Re-training (21st Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 78).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the committee's report is based on Commission proposals for a Community action programme for continuing vocational training and re-training, known as the FORCE programme. The aim of the FORCE programme is to improve vocational training and re-trailing in the Community.
The four specific objectives of the programme are: to encourage greater investment in continuing vocational training; to support innovation; to promote the planning and design of schemes which take account of the completion of the internal market; and to contribute to the greater effectiveness of training mechanisms. In common with most witnesses, the committee agrees with the objectives of the FORCE programme. We also share the concern of many witnesses about the poor performance of the United Kingdom in the field of vocational training compared with many other countries both in the Community and outside. This concern was reinforced by the visit of Sub-Committee C to Paris to learn about the excellent French system of vocational
420
training and by the copious evidence which we received on the German dual system of vocational training.
During the course of the sub-committee's inquiry the Commission's proposals were adopted by the Council. Therefore, the report concentrates on the United Kingdom's ability to meet the requirements of the now adopted FORCE programme. In the light of the Commission's proposals to member states to submit a strategic framework for achieving the objectives of the FORCE programme, the committee considered whether the United Kingdom had an adequate framework to fulfil the requirement.
We concluded that the United Kingdom does not have a clearly articulated national strategic framework for training. The committee shares the view expressed by the CBI, the TUC and several other witnesses that such a strategic framework is needed in the United Kingdom. We believe that as far as possible this framework should be based on consensus between the two sides of industry—the so-called social partners. In accordance with the FORCE programme the framework should be promulgated by means of annual reports to be laid before Parliament and discussed with the two sides of industry. The reports should include past achievements in the field of vocational training and set clear targets for the immediate future.
Six years ago the Select Committee's report on Youth Training in the EC concluded:
"in the United Kingdom there is an urgent need to bring together the whole education, training and employment of young people in a coherent framework which can he understood by employers, parents, educators and trainers, and above all by the young people themselves".
The committee endorses that conclusion which it feels is very relevant today. It believes that such a framework is needed to encompass the provision of vocational training for all age groups in the United Kingdom.
The committee accordingly proposes that a comprehensive national strategic framework for training should include the following 10 points: the analysis of future national training requirements, particularly those resulting from technological change; clear objectives and detailed targets for improving training performance; plans for installing and maintaining a single national system of vocational qualifications and standards; the provision of individual records of achievement prepared for all young people; arrangements for providing individuals with access to the information they need to make informed training and career choices; proposals for monitoring and improving training quality; ways of improving access to training, including policies designed to ensure equal opportunities; specific proposals for increasing women's access to training, particularly for returners to the labour market; specific incentives to be used to encourage employers and employees, including small businesses, to improve training; plans for monitoring and evaluating national training performance.
Each aspect of this framework and the legislative underpinning necessary is considered in the report, which states that in each of these areas the respective responsibilities of the Government, employers and employees should be clearly defined. The strategic framework should also specify who will be responsible for payment.
Vocational training in the United Kingdom has been criticised for more than a century. Given the scale of the gap between the United Kingdom and its main industrial competitors, and given the long history of failure which has marked the voluntary approach to training in this country, the committee considers that some form of statutory underpinning is needed to act as a catalyst for change. The committee is convinced that the right place to start is to increase the access of young people to training, as 30 per cent. of young people currently go straight from school into jobs with little or no training.
We conclude that legislation should be introduced to ensure that all 16 to 18 year-olds are provided with education or training. Any employer employing a 16 to 18 year-old full time should be obliged by law to arrange an appropriate programme of training leading to a recognised qualification. Individuals aged 16 to 18 would have the freedom of choice to remain at school, to undertake full-time training or take up a job with training.
Such provision would require a minimum amount of legislation and would not entail a heavy handed bureaucracy. The legislation would ensure that all young people in the United Kingdom could start their working life with a basic grounding of training along the lines which operate in the Federal Republic of Germany and in France. The committee welcomed the introduction of training credits but felt that such credits on their own were not enough and needed legislative underpinning. The committee noted the Government's repeated opposition to Community measures which could add to employment costs. The experience of the United Kingdom's main industrial competitors led the committee to conclude that effectively managed vocational training should be viewed as an investment rather than as a cost. We are convinced that a substantial increase in the quantity and an improvement in the quality of training in the United Kingdom would result in increased productivity and industrial competitiveness.
The Government have already issued a very full response to the committee's report. I am most grateful to the Department of Employment for the effort which it has put into that response and for its co-operation with the sub-committee's inquiry. Nevertheless, there are two important aspects of the response which I feel are inadequate. I have given the Secretary of State notice of my intention to raise these points during the debate and I hope that the Minister will cover them in his reply.
First, I have already mentioned that one of the committee's principal recommendations was that legislation should be introduced to ensure that all 16 to 18 year-olds are provided with education or training. The Government's response does not directly comment on that recommendation, though on the penultimate page
422
the response states that the Government do not believe that worthwhile and effective training can be guaranteed by legislation and compulsion, with all the associated bureaucracies and inflexibilities. As it was not the committee's intention to recommend a bureaucratic, inflexible system, Sub-committee C agreed that I should raise this matter during the debate. I hope that the Minister will respond.
Secondly, the report suggested that a personal income tax allowance should be considered as a further incentive to individual investment and training. The Government's response to that point relates principally to employer funded training. I would welcome the Minister's reply to the specific subject of tax incentives for individuals.
The committee and the Government are at one in recognising the need to change attitudes to training, but we diverge on how this might be done. The Government's main strategic approach is through the locally based TECs, which they claim will know best how the problems of their area can be dealt with and are therefore the best means of bringing about an improvement in skills. The committee's opinion is that there must be a much stronger lead from the Government. I do not want to expand on the role of TECs as I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, intends to do that in her maiden speech, to which we all very much look forward.
At paragraph 61 of the report we refer to the evidence of the then Minister, Mr. Tim Eggar. He considered that while society thought it right that children should stay at school up to the age of 16, there was not at present the same degree of consensus that young people should either stay on at school until they were 18 or should have to undergo training.
In the previous paragraph of the report we refer to information provided by the Ministry of Education and Science in the Federal Republic of Germany. The Ministry stated:
"It would imply the renunciation of economic potential, the acceptance of future unemployment and associated social problems as well as the non-fulfilment of the educational mandate if not all school leavers were given full vocational qualifications after compulsory schooling. This is why there is a national consensus of all social and political forces in the Federal Republic of Germany to the effect that all school leavers should receive as qualified a vocational training as possible".
That presents a tremendous contrast. If Mr. Eggar is right about the state of opinion in this country, surely that makes it even more important for the Government to mount a persistent attack on those attitudes.
The committee was impressed by the training targets set by the CBI. It felt that a previous Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Norman Fowler, had been going along the right lines when he mentioned stretching targets in a speech made in December 1989. Regrettably, those targets have not been endorsed by the Government, though in his response to the committee the Secretary of State welcomed the setting of targets by the CBI.
Finally, I should like to underline the committee's conclusions on equal opportunities and the training

423
needs of women in the light of demographic factors. The report draws attention to the high cost of child care provision, which, if paid for out of taxed income, provides little incentive for women either to re-train or to return to work. The committee concluded that the lack o child care facilities and the high cost entailed when care is available remain major obstacles which prevent women enjoying the benefits of training. To encourage women in this respect, the committee recommended the extension of tax relief to the cost of child care in all cases.
I should like to extend my warm thanks and appreciation to members of Sub-Committee C for their support in this inquiry. I should like to put on record our particular thanks to our specialist adviser, Mr. Quentin Thompson, and to Dr. Philippa Tudor, the clerk to the committee, for the excellent way in which she assisted us.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Vocational Training and Re-training (21st Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 78).—(Baroness Lockwood.)
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am conscious of the honour accorded to me by Her Majesty's Government in making me a Member of your Lordships' House. I am grateful that it was seen fit to choose one whose origin lie in India. As a British citizen married to an Englishman, I have spent all my working life here and also obtained my legal qualifications in this country. In addition to my other interests, I hope that I may in some small measure contribute to a better understanding of the concerns of minority groups living in this country.
I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for producing an excellent report. It bears all the hallmarks of a good report: it is short; it is to the point; and, it is readable. I should like to begin by quoting the conclusions of a Royal Commission. It stated:
"Neglect of training is a key reason for Britain's lack of competitiveness".
That Royal Commission on Technical Instruction sat in 1884. Sadly, it has an all too familiar ring to us even today. For well over a 100 years we have been aware of our national shortcomings over skill levels in the workforce, especially when compared to that of Germany. Its widely admired "dual system" has ensured that the great majority of its younger people enter the workforce with a proper vocational qualification. That covers not just 16 year-old or 17 year-old school-leavers, but also graduates. The learning culture in that country is strong enough to motivate people, even in their mid to late-twenties, to accept reduced pay while building their personal skills and qualifications.
This year Germany accepted an unprecedented challenge. At the historic moment of unification, resources will have to be found to tackle the neglect and demotivation of the past 40 years. Having just returned from Eastern Germany, I know that the people will need all the support and goodwill that they
424
can obtain. In the United Kingdom, we have had a history of neglect in this whole area. Governments have gone for deceptive short-term benefits of minimal public investment. Too many employers have claimed that when business is bad they cannot afford training, and that when it is good there is no time.
During this year, at last, the Government have made an imaginative and significant effort to get to grips with the situation by drawing in business leaders on a massive scale, to take charge of a revitalised training structure. I refer to the rapidly evolving network of training and enterprise councils of which there will be about 80 in England and Wales by next year. We can already see significant benefits flowing from the first few to begin operation. For example, in the training and enterprise council in my area, the Thames Valley, we have increased the number of young people studying for a qualification while employed by about 25 per cent. over last year. Like us, other training and enterprise councils are working ever more closely with educationists to reinforce industrial links and encourage more young people to stay on in higher or further education.
As has already been stated, in their response to the Select Committee's report, the Government highlighted the role of the TECs. They said:
"We believe that the formation of employer-led TECs is a key to meeting the challenge".
However, the launch of the TECs earlier this year was accompanied by a reduction in the money available for training. I understand that a further reduction is planned for next year. We cannot afford to let our investment slide just at the moment when we have a most hopeful initiative before us.
There is no getting away from the fact that world class results will cost money in the short term, even though in the longer run it will be cheaper than our past policy of hopeful drifting. It is no good politicians hoping that the transfer of public spending to private sector spending will cover all aspects of the matter. I urge the Government to think again on that point.
In a truly British way, all this depends on a great deal of voluntary action. For example, TEC directors are unpaid and give a great deal of their time, as I know to my cost. There will be 80 TECs all over the country and it is inevitable that they will function in a variety of different ways, as indeed is the intention. Moreover, no doubt they will also have a variety of different standards. I believe it is essential that they should operate within the framework of nationally agreed targets and that their performance should be measured against objective criteria set by the Government. That will not make them any the less responsive to local needs or less flexible; on the contrary, it will help in concentrating the mind and will achieve clarity of purpose. A rigorously defined quality standard, with emphasis on results, will ensure an evenness of purpose across the country.
In this drive for qualifications we must not forget those with special needs, whether that means the ethnic minorities, the disabled or any other disadvantaged group. I am deeply concerned that in the European context equal opportunities have come

425
to cover only the opportunities for women. The report takes no note of the needs of any other group. We are the only member state in the European Community to have enacted legislation to protect minorities from discrimination and to encourage special training and educational programmes to remedy past disadvantage.
I must express disappointment that the Commission for Racial Equality was not invited to give evidence to the committee in this area of concern. It is to be hoped that the TECs will use the provisions of the Race Relations Act to set up special programmes. But, so far, only the Leeds TEC has announced firm plans to provide courses in managerial training. There are some other notable examples of employer-led schemes. They include the BBC, the TSB and the West Midlands Police access training which is open to all under-achievers.
We need to tap the unused potential of ethnic minorities, and ensure that they do not end up as second-class citizens of the new Europe. We stand at the threshold of a most monumental development for Europe. On 1st January 1993, all our young people will be free to seek their future in a Community of 12 nation states. We must not sell them short by denying them the best preparation possible, whether in languages or in skills. They will not thank us if they lose out to others better prepared because we have not had the far-sightedness to invest in their future.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me on behalf of the House to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on her maiden speech. I found it convincing and incisive. Somehow, the quiet way in which it was delivered added to its authority. The noble Baroness has considerable experience of law, education, local government and other matters. I have no doubt that she will prove to be a most valuable Member of your Lordships' House, and we look forward to the many further contributions that we hope she will make to our debates.
I was not a member of the committee which produced the report. I am therefore all the more delighted to welcome its contents from these Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, dealt with the report so comprehensively that I can perhaps best contribute to the debate by concentrating on just a few key points. First, I support wholeheartedly the committee's conclusion that there is a need for a clearly articulated national strategic framework for training in the United Kingdom, and that that training should, so far as possible, be based upon a consensus.
In April last year, I was privileged to introduce a debate on training in your Lordships' House. On that occasion, I acknowledged that the Government's White Paper entitled Employment for the 1990s, outlined a new structure for training nationally, but not a policy involving the Government, employers, training producers and others. The extent to which that paper relied on rhetoric suggested a command model altogether inappropriate for its evident aim to
426
effect cultural change in the nation's approach to training. In contrast, the new training initiative of 1981 was widely seen as a national training strategy, and employers, trade unions, and educational and training organisations were all involved in its formulation.
Within the existing framework, as we have been told, employer-led TECs are being established at local level to plan and deliver training. I welcome that emphasis on local delivery, and know from experience that training is often at its best when it is provided by employers, especially by large companies.
I am also convinced that if we are to compete successfully within Europe and outside the Community, training must be regarded as a long-term investment secured by political stability and the involvement of all those elements in society which have a stake in the problem. I therefore regret that, in the absence of a lead from the Government, it has been left to the CBI to arrange for representatives of the TUC, chambers of commerce, TECs, local authorities and educational organisations—almost everyone except the Government—to meet in an effort to draw up national training targets.
The CBI hoped to achieve a consensus on training by the end of next March based on qualifications and standards set by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. Its initiative, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, follows the Government's decision not merely to withdraw support from targets previously set for the 1990s by Sir Norman Fowler when he was Secretary of State, but to abandon any further attempt to set such objectives. Since the Government are apparently unwilling to take any responsibility for establishing national targets, I hope that they will at least accept the recommendations contained in the report, and that they will endorse those set by others as United Kingdom training objectives.
The second major matter upon which I should like to speak is the problem which has bedevilled this country's training effort for the past 30 years or more —who is to pay for it? The committee observed how many witnesses indicated that exhortation alone was unlikely to be adequate to achieve the major change in cultural attitudes towards training needed in the United Kingdom.
The levy grant system has been tried and widely found to be wanting in terms of the bureaucracy and inflexibility that accompanied it. Various suggestions were made to the committee designed to provide more positive incentives to help solve the problem. The CBI, as the noble Baroness said, proposed a personal income tax allowance of, let us say, £1,000 per annum, for anyone working towards a nationally recognised qualification in their own time where a training credit was not also being used.
The committee supported that recommendation, but it would of course cost the Exchequer money. In that connection, the Institute of Personnel Management made a challenging proposal in its recently published discussion paper entitled A national

427
development agenda. In that document the institute has elaborated upon the principles put forward in its evidence to the committee that there should be access to continuous development in the form of self-directed learning throughout an individual's career; and that the learning needs of the individual should be integrated with those of the employing organisation.
Against that background, the institute proposes as a further principlethat the cost of learning should be shared among those who benefit from it—the state, the employer and the individuals concerned. The proportion of the cost to be borne by each beneficiary would vary according to the type of learning, the stage at which it occurred in the learner's experience and its cost in relation to factors such as time, method and personal opportunity. For example, it argued that since the state would benefit from the general education of young people to the age of 18—on a full or part-time basis—that education should be paid for by the state. It further makes the bold suggestion that because the training individuals receive should enhance their job prospects, those individuals should themselves be prepared to contribute towards its cost. Thus young people might be expected to accept a trainee-level wage in exchange for high quality education and training. I recall that as long ago as 1982 your Lordships' Select Committee on unemployment recommended in its report:
"Because … the wage earned by school leavers who do obtain employment is often too high in relation to the adult wage (especially where there is no training), the gap between school leavers' and adult wages should widen, as new wage agreements are made".
In my view, the IPM's proposal merits the discussion that it suggests with the Government, political parties, employers, trade unions, education and training professionals and other interested parties.
Surely the need for continuity is just as great in national training policy as in matters affecting the finance and structure of local government. If consultation concerning the future of local taxation is thought desirable—and I commend the Government for the initiative that they have taken in that respect —the constant changes affecting the organisation and funding of training that we have experienced since the 1960s point just as clearly in the same direction.
It is sad, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, that just at the time when we are discussing the adoption of a community action programme for the development of continuing vocational training the Government have seen fit, without warning, to cut expenditure by the Department of Employment in real terms by £150 million in 1991–92 and £216 million in 1992–93. Like the noble Baroness, I very much hope that the Government will have second thoughts about that.
However the vexed question of payment is viewed, I am convinced that the committee is justified in its conclusion that some form of statutory underpinning is needed as a catalyst for progress and that the right place to start is to increase the access of young people to training. On these Benches we have for years advocated that there should be legislation to ensure
428
that, as elsewhere in Western Europe, all 16 to 18 year-olds should be provided with education or training.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, told us that the committee concluded that this could best be achieved by obliging any organisation employing someone in that age group full-time to arrange an appropriate programme of training leading to a recognised qualification. The report rightly says that this would require a minimum amount of legislation and would not entail a heavy handed bureaucracy.
Perhaps the most telling conclusion from the committee comes in the penultimate paragraph of its report. There the Government's opposition to Community measures which could acid to employment costs is noted, but the committee affirms its belief that effective vocational training is and should be viewed as an investment and not as a cost. It is convinced that a substantial increase is needed in both the quantity and quality of training. It considers that without it there is a severe risk of a steady and accelerating relative decline in the UK economy which will become increasingly difficult to reverse. In its view there is not much time left for action; I agree. That conclusion is given all the more urgency by the evidence recently supplied to the Engineering Industry Training Board that with the onset of a recession, expenditure on training in manufacturing industry in some parts of the North has dropped by 20 per cent. and that in areas of chronic skill shortages traineeships are being reduced.
Finally, I wish to revert to a matter that I raised in the debate last year on training, to which I referred earlier. At that time, I said that the White Paper Employment for the 1990s was written as though the only people in need of training were those in industry and commerce. It seemed to ignore the fact that the wealth spending public services could and should contribute to our prosperity just as much as the business sector by becoming more effective. I suggested then that we are all part of a complex, inter-dependent society in which the public services, including national and local government, should promote a training culture, like everyone else.
Yet, the White Paper contained hardly a mention of what still needed to be done in those services. Indeed, at one point it specifically stated:
"Developing training through life is not primarily a government responsibility".
In my view it certainly is. Credibility is lacking if in any strategy for change there is no acknowledgment that its originators are also in need of reform. The Government are the initiators of the policy which training and enterprise councils have been asked to implement. The Government are at least as much a part of the problem as wealth creators.
Against that background, I should be grateful if, when the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, replies to the debate, he would give me some indication of what progress has been made during the past 18 months in promoting training in government departments. In my

429
view it is in that way that the Government can best demonstrate the extent to which they practise what they preach.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on her maiden speech. I shall not give a curriculum vitae as he did; I shall keep my comments short. Hers was a challenging speech; she challenged us in the committee over an omission. She challenged the House and the Government slightly on one or two points. But it was not controversial. I look forward to hearing her speak in the House as well as assisting us in future in the committee. I am sure she has a great contribution to make to all our debates.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for reporting so fully on the discussions we held in the committee and especially on the 10 points that were the framework of our findings and what we felt so strongly about in the committee. The theme through it all was that the committee felt that the Government should give a stronger lead and perhaps also more finance. I shall come to that later.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, dealt with matters industrial so comprehensively that I shall be able to reduce my speech considerably. He made many of the points I was going to make, and in a debate with so many speakers it is pointless repeating them. I support many of the points he made.
In our report we draw attention to the great importance of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. It is a key to training especially for young people and also, I hope, as the years go by and they are able to develop their Levels Four and Five, for older people. The committee noted —and I emphasise our note on this point—that the Government have pump-primed the NCVQ well, but it is taking a long time and a tremendous amount of work needs to be done in setting up vocational qualifications. The committee felt that there was still a need for continuing funding because the NCVQ will become self-supporting only when it starts granting certificates of vocational qualification. These depend on the qualifications being set and on people spending two, or perhaps three or five, years obtaining the qualifications. I do not believe that the cash flow exists; there is a need for more funding.
The TECs can contribute a great deal to our future. There were some comments—and I shall not divert on them—that perhaps there was a need for greater union participation. We may need to examine that.
I wish to draw on the evidence that we received from France, partly because I was there to take the evidence. We went to France 20 years after the French equivalents of the TUC and the CBI had got together and decided to do something about training. Much has been made of this point. A joint agreement on training was reached. The CBI is trying to reach such an agreement at the moment. Those French organisations told the government that their initiative
430
on training would not work unless it was underpinned by government legislation. They stressed that the legislation need not be complicated or bureaucratic. French companies now spend about 1.5 per cent. of their gross salary bill on training. That situation is regulated and there are tax penalties if that sum is not used. That position is being improved upon. I have a feeling that this country would like to see that kind of underpinning legislation here. There are complaints that some small and large companies do not spend money on training but poach trained individuals. After 1991 it will not just be a question of this country poaching individuals or having individuals poached; there will be a European dimension to the problem. I believe that we require not just British legislative underpinning but rather European Community legislative underpinning. We need Community legislation on the amount to be spent on training and the way it is funded.
This is a complicated matter. I realise that one way of underpinning this legislation is through taxation. Taxation and the giving of training credits to companies, which they have to use or pay for other people's training, may be an answer. The Government have produced a good initiative on training credits for young people. However, I suggest that training credits should be given to companies where they do not have training facilities. The training credits could perhaps be managed by the training and enterprise councils. They might be useful as a means of funding the TECs. This matter needs to be considered.
I now wish to turn to a current problem. We shall hear a lot this evening about the training of young people. However, I believe that the training of older people is also important in this time of recession. Such people need to be re-trained, perhaps because the company they work for has gone out of business or perhaps because it is looking at its own internal workings as a result of the recession. Perhaps the company has decided that it must turn either left or right. I hope the House will pardon the political gestures. In other words, it must divert from the path it is following at present. Such a change will require new skills on the part of the workforce. Unfortunately two things happen in such a situation. The staff are possibly on short-time working and therefore they are available for training. However, the accountants of most companies decide that training must be cut as their companies are facing difficulties.
The other problem is that if companies are not profitable the fact that training is a cost that can be set against corporation tax means, unfortunately, that government funding through negative taxation, if one wishes to call it that, is not available for training. There is a need to look again at how training can be funded in this time of recession. I am not talking necessarily about a training levy. Perhaps the Government will have to pump-prime and pull the money back subsequently from companies by charging higher fees. After all, courses have to be set up and the TECs need capital to enable them to move forward. At the moment there is a problem as companies do not have the necessary capital.

431
I wish to pick up a point made about training in the Government's response to the committee's report. The Government stated:
"The first rule of setting objectives is to have the capacity to ensure they are reached".
I quite agree with that. The Government continued:
"While the Government can and does influence the training investment decisions of businesses, it patently cannot control the amount employers invest or the type of training purchased".
I believe that the Government need to take a much stronger lead in this matter. I believe that the CBI and the TUC should get together to produce a report, and that more input should come from government departments. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to that point. What are the Government doing about training? How can they feed people in and out of the training situation? Can they advise people in industry how to work better with government departments, on exports for example? A lot of cross-boundary flow exists as regards training that has not yet been tackled. The Government should give a lead in this matter. I support the noble Baroness in proposing that the recommendations of the report be accepted.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, our chairman, my noble friend Lady Lockwood has given the House an admirable summary of the FORCE programme and the committee's response to it. Therefore I believe that the job of other speakers should be to highlight the points they consider important or the points which need emphasis. There is overwhelming evidence that in terms of training and the numbers of young people staying on in education, the United Kingdom lags far behind not only most countries in Europe but also Japan, South Korea and Thailand.
Our vocational training system has developed in an ad hoc, piecemeal way. There have been constant changes. Now there has been a change in attitude. In 1989 the CBI and the TUC produced papers entitled Towards a Skills Revolution and Skills 2000. The degree of consensus between the two organisations was remarkable. They agreed on the need for a massive expansion of training to attain a skills revolution and so combat existing skills shortages; they agreed too on the need for continued learning throughout people's working lives.
In their response to our report, the Government agreed with the committee that sufficient and appropriate training of the right quality was essential for future competitiveness. They stated:
"Well directed and effective training is a vital investment".
There is a great deal of agreement on the need for training. But there is disagreement on how it is to be achieved. The Government have opposed on principle any Community measures that could add to employment costs. The Community social charter declares that,
"every worker of the European Community must be able to have access to vocational training and to receive such training throughout his working life".
432
The charter gives people the right to training. However, it has not been signed by the UK. The UK is the only member state not to have signed it. Behind the Government's refusal to sign is the belief that however necessary it is to increase vocational training and however much an investment by a company in vocational training would he a remunerative investment, any burdening of employers with legal requirements would be counter-productive and would increase costs. The committee believes that without some compulsion little will be done. The committee further believes that it is hopeless to rely on companies to act voluntarily.
The CBI believes that any employment of under-18 year-olds which does not involve structured education and training leading to recognised qualifications should be eliminated. The CBI argues that this could be achieved through voluntary means if young people, educationalists, the Government and the two sides of industry come together to make it happen. On the other hand Sir John Cassels, a former Permanent Secretary at the Department of Employment and author of Britain's Real Skill Shortage, thinks it implausible to believe that such a major change could be effected by voluntary means. He points out that young people can earn relatively high wages on leaving school at 16 and that these earnings provide a strong disincentive to undertake training. Employers are tempted to view 16 and 17 year-olds as cheap labour. Sir John proposes contracts of employment for 16 to 18 year-olds which would include an obligation to train and would lead to a recognised qualification. He believes that the Secretary of State should regulate the pay of young people.
That brings me to the question of legislation. The committee came to the view that some kind of statutory underpinning was needed to act as a catalyst for change. I endorse that view strongly. The voluntary approach has failed. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood remarked, the committee concluded that legislation should be introduced which would ensure that all 16 to 18 year-olds were provided with education or training, and that every employer who employed a 16 to 18 year-old full-tune would be obliged by law to arrange an appropriate programme of training.
It is a mistake to refer to "education or training". Young people, and indeed older people, need both. By saying "or" we are in danger of continuing the disastrous division in this country between the academic and the vocational. If we want to get on we must put a stop to that.
This leads me to comment on our educational system, which has been so unsuccessful in keeping 16 year-olds in education. The total is now about 50 per cent. of the age group, a slight improvement over the past year or two. I believe that tertiary colleges are a better bet than sixth forms or sixth-form colleges as they provide both academic and vocational courses in the same place. The students can take a mixture of both and need not be confined to one stream or another.

433
There should be much greater freedom to take exams such as BTEC in schools and colleges working under school regulations. Incidentally, I believe that it would be a very good thing to get rid of school regulations altogether. I believe that there is some movement regarding BTEC; I hope that the Minister can give further information. It is a type of exam that appeals to certain children very much more than A-levels. BTEC provides an attractive alternative for many and a different route to higher education. It could help to keep young people in the educational system.
The FORCE programme proposed a framework for vocational training. My noble friend Lady Lockwood quoted the sub-committee's report, which asked for a coherent framework. She quoted from the sub-committee's report on youth training in the EC, which appeared in 1984, and which asked at that time for a coherent framework. Six years have gone by since then: we still have no framework. There was hope of one in Mr. Fowler's statement in December 1989 when he announced a number of admirable objectives for young people and adults. They would have given the right to training by the end of 1992; also, targets were set for certain qualifications, which appear in paragraph 50 of our report. Mr. Fowler said:
"Unless we set ourselves those kinds of stretching targets we shall not meet the need for upgrading and multi-skilling in a decade of continuing rapid change, nor shall we adequately meet the rapidly growing need for re-skilling of older workers or of those returning to the job market".
Unfortunately Mr. Fowler went. And the objectives were withdrawn by Mr. Howard.
One cannot help but be suspicious of the Government's commitment and therefore of their understanding of the need for urgent action. When Mr. Eggar was tackled by the committee there was a certain amount of ambiguity in his response. I thought that he was a bit shifty.
Our committee proposed a comprehensive national strategic framework which included 10 points. My noble friend Lady Lockwood quoted them. I should like to mention a few. Plans for installing and maintaining a single national system of vocational qualifications and standards are well under way with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. Provided it has enough funds and is not expected to be self-financing, as the Government seem to want, good progress should be made.
Points VI and X relate to proposals for monitoring and improving training quality and monitoring and evaluating national training performance. I should like to know from the Minister what plans the Government have for undertaking that monitoring. To what extent will the TECs and the training standards advisory services be involved?
Points VII and VIII refer to improving access to training. What specific measures have the Government in mind? To what extent for example, will distance learning be involved? The careers service could be of great help here. It should be extended to
434
include the entire workforce and there should be increased funding. The committee said that it was for consideration whether the service needed to be independent of LEAs as a result of that extension. I believe that it would be a pity to remove it from the local authorities. There is a very good background of knowledge and experience there to build on. As usual, it is resources that are lacking.
In the internal review of the careers service which the ACC and the AMA undertook and discussed with the Department of Employment, there is a paragraph which is worth quoting:
"The Careers Service is central to the delivery of information, advice and guidance … It also needs to be recognised that the Careers Service … is involved in wider activities than these. Within local authorities the Careers Service often has important links with economic development departments, library and information services, housing, and social services departments. Within the education department it has an important input to the planning of further education and training and is often employed as an agency to assist in the delivery of various Training Agency programmes. It also … has a role in projects related to educational advice and guidance specifically directed at adults and adult literacy and basic skills schemes".
I hope that before decisions are taken those points will be borne in mind. If the Minister can give any up-to-date information on the review I should be grateful.
I trust that the Government's quite warm reception of, and agreement with, the report will mean action and that the TECs, on which the Department of Employment places such reliance, will achieve the success which is hoped for. Once again, they will not do so without adequate resources. The South and East Cheshire TEC, when it gave evidence, clearly felt that more money was needed to do an effective job—for transport and travel, to take one example.
The Government's cutting of expenditure on training, which the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, mentioned in her excellent maiden speech, at this time, makes one both doubting and despondent. That and the negative response to suggestions for various tax incentives and the objections to legislative underpinning make one fear that the commitment to real change in vocational training and re-training is much less than it should be and that the urgency that the committee felt was essential—in its words,
"there is not much time left for action—
has not been recognised by the Government. I hope that when the Minister replies he will dissipate some of those fears.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, with other noble Peers I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Flather on her maiden speech. She and I served on the Swann Committee for seven years looking into the question of the education of children from ethnic groups. I therefore know how much she has to offer to your Lordships' House. I also congratulate my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and her committee on the report.

435
I wish to ask only one question. Part II of the report deals with vocational training in two member states —Germany and France. Paragraph 5 reads:
"Activities to be initiated by the Commission could include the following: support for innovation in continuing vocational training, such as: exchange schemes for staff involved in training".
I appreciate that the report deals with Europe. Howe%er, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could let me know whether the scheme could be extended to countries outside Europe. I have read and representations have been made to me that young people in Russia aged 16 to 18 at the moment are feeling somewhat bemused by the political changes in their country, which we all welcome. Would it be possible for there to be an exchange between young people and those who train them in Russia and those involved in training in this country? It is only a small question but I should be grateful if my noble friend could let me have a reply.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, first, I have an apology to make. If the debate continues much later than 7.45 p.m. I shall have to slip away owing to a previous engagement.
I too should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on her maiden speech, which I listened to with great interest. I accept her mild rebuke that in the course of our consultations we did not take evidence from the CRE. I also appreciated the importance which she attached to the training of ethnic minority groups, who are obviously particularly vulnerable to the absence of training facilities.
I should also like to thank our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who looked after us so effectively and summarised the conclusions of our report so comprehensively and fairly. That makes it all the less necessary for those of us who were on the committee to spend time rehearsing the outlines of what vie discussed. That has already been done. I shall do my best to be brief in addressing myself to some of the problems with which we are confronted.
One cannot very well start speaking about this whole important topic without introducing one's remarks with the depressing conclusion reached by the committee. It has already been referred to but it needs repeating: a substantial increase is needed in both the quantity and quality of training in the United Kingdom and unless that is achieved there is a severe risk of a steady and accelerating decline in the United Kingdom's economy. That has been said before and events have proved it to be correct. I suggest that the absence of vocational training in this country is one of the major factors that lie behind our relatively poor economic performance.
Not one single witness who came before the committee denied that in today's world training is the key to productivity. In connection with this debate I would add that for the purposes of our discussion to distinguish between education and training is somewhat unnecessary and unhelpful. Both are part of one process. I feel that the Government's responsibility extends beyond education to training.
436
To pretend that when people leave school suddenly the Government no longer have any responsibility for training them seems to me to be untrue as well as extremely unwise. Training is merely a specialised form of education and should be recognised as such.
In the course of this debate the deplorable situation in this country compared with other countries has not been made quite as starkly evident as it should have been. It is the case that by the end of this century South Korea hopes that 80 per cent. of its young people will reach university entrance standard and France expects that 75 per cent. of her young people will do so, whereas the United Kingdom's ambitious target is 30 per cent. To take another indicator, today 95 per cent. of Japanese stay in education until they are 16 or 18; over 80 per cent. of young people do so in the United States; at best only 50 per cent. do so in this country.
One-third of the British workforce has received no training of any sort whatever. To take one trade in particular—the furniture industry—nine-tenths of the people in that industry in Germany will have had three years' vocational training and have a qualification. Only one-tenth of comparable persons in this country will have received such training. It is in the face of those intractable facts that the Government's approach to the crisis must be judged. If we continue along the route on which we are set at the moment, we are bound to slip behind our competitors in Europe and elsewhere.
No one denies that state of affairs and the Government accept the FORCE proposals; but they do not will the means to put the FORCE proposals into effect. I find that profoundly disappointing. The Government have no strategic plan. They refuse to set targets. They are reducing the money that they offer for training. They persist in relying on the voluntary system. They assert that there is no consensus to the effect that young people should either stay on at school or undergo training to the age of 16 or 17.
I do not know where they are looking for such consensus. There was universal consensus among those who gave evidence to us that this was desirable. I have not heard anyone say that it was not desirable. Does anyone solemnly suggest that it is a good thing that young people should leave school at 16 and not receive further training or education? Is that the Government's view about the attitudes in this country? If so, how can we change the situation? That is the task that confronts us. How can we get out of a situation of rather smug inertia in which we do nothing?
I hope that in reply to the debate the Minister will not simply repeat what was said in evidence before the committee, which we have read and heard. Having read and heard that evidence, it is not unfair to say that the committee came to the conclusion that the Government did not quite measure up to the needs of the moment. I hope that they will reconsider the need for a strategy and the need to set targets. I hope that they will explain why, unlike other countries in Western Europe, they have chosen this moment to decrease their financial contribution to training; or

437
perhaps we should regard that as just part of their general neglect of infrastructure which appears to be a policy that they pursue in many areas of our life.
Given the gap which exists and which I suggest is growing between the United Kingdom and its competitors, and given the long history of failure which has marked the voluntary approach, the case for a statutory approach starting with the 16 to 17 year-olds, as recommended by the committee, seems overwhelming. If the Government intend to reject that recommendation, they must produce some very substantial arguments as to why.
At another inquiry conducted by one of the sub-committees of the Select Committee on the European Communities which is taking place at the moment members were told that for every £1 invested in the reform of the economies of Central and Eastern Europe £2 ought to be invested in training. That figure is significant. It indicates that the key to economic performance lies in training. If that is what we tell the people of Central and Eastern Europe, we should practise what we preach to them.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. The House will not be surprised to learn that she has already put her imprint on the next report of the sub-committee which is to be considered tomorrow morning. The principal recommendations have been eloquently set out by the chairman and discussed by many other noble Lords. I shall be very brief and will confine my remarks to one important issue. In doing so I refer to the report published in October this year by the Save British Science Society. That organisation and many others, in particular the Royal Society and the research councils, have drawn the attention of government to the deficiencies in our scientific training programme, which of course begins at school.
I believe that that is the key to our problem in a science-based society. All children at secondary school should be taught science by teachers who have an appropriate degree. When I was at school it was reasonable to decide whether to join the science stream or the arts stream. I do not believe that that is any longer the situation. All children must be taught about science in the same way that all children should be taught at least one language at an early age. One has only to see children from several different countries playing on the beach to realise that they are teaching one another French, German or English as they are playing together.
Another aspect which must become the norm rather than the exception—it has been referrd to several times already—is the period of post-16 training with the aim of increasing full-time participation levels to about 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. Everyone should be able to achieve some recognised qualification. The Save British Science organisation also recognises that tertiary education
438
should be available to the majority with at least a 50 per cent. increase in science and engineering graduates.
I entirely support the view that if we are to cope with the new European situation we must produce technically trained people with qualifications which are of an international standard. It would seem perfectly possible that if we do not do so those in Europe, in particular from Germany and Italy, with such qualifications will require to be appointed to industrial concerns in this country because our people will be unable to fulfil that need in a competitive sense. That is quite a thought.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, to the debate on investment in education on 21st November is of great relevance to the problem. He said that the broadening of the school curriculum introduced by the national curriculum left the A-levels unchanged. He regarded that as a grave mistake. That is highly relevant to what we are discussing. A-levels force those who stay at school to study in depth rather than in breadth and that discourages many from remaining at school. Attention must be given to those matters.
The noble Lord's careful study of the national curriculum in science revealed—this is difficult to believe—that few 16 year-olds are expected to reach beyond level 7 of the 10 levels of achievement under the curricula. One extraordinary result of that is that few 16 year-olds taking science will have been told anything about DNA, the genetic code or genetic engineering because those subjects appear only at levels 8, 9 and 10. In the debate he stressed that it is a matter for grave anxiety that more than 70 per cent. of our children will be turned out into the adult world at 16 with no training or education in subjects such as genetic engineering. The broader approach to education training is, I believe, the right one.
The view of the noble Lord, Lord Perry, of the development in technology was even more depressing. Apprenticeships have virtually disappeared. Further education has had to cope with students who are ill-prepared in the basics of maths and physics. The shortage of teachers has been a problem for decades. It is not a new crisis. It has been with us for many years. But the disastrous situation in this country has been very clearly revealed to the European Committee of your Lordships' House as it compares the situation with other Common Market countries, in particular Germany and France.
In their reply to the report of the Select Committee, the Government stated that they believe the formation of local employer-led training and enterprise councils forms the key to meeting that challenge. From what I have said, noble Lords will gather that I wonder about that.
The Government stated that TECs are based on a new concept. Although we have learnt from private industry councils in the United States, TECs have more money, greater scope and more senior industrialists with which to fulfil their missions. The Government are convinced that their ability to sustain

439
the interest of top executives will be crucial in the re-skilling of Britain. It is right that employers should take a leading role. I do not disagree with that.
I believe that we must heed what the noble Lord, Lord Perry, said. The crisis is in the schools. The systems that are suggested by the Government will not work, at least not fully and to our satisfaction, unless we deal with an output of school leavers whose basic education in maths and science has been almost entirely neglected.
Where are the resources to come from to provide pupils at school with the hardware necessary to establish work stations? Let us take the simple example of a personal computer, a video disk player and a cable connection to a central library of learning materials. That is what teenagers should be exposed to. If that is provided the situation in schools will be transformed. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, said that, and I believe that in the light of his enormous experience the matter should be urgently examined.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I too should like to begin my comments this evening by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, to whose maiden speech I listened with great appreciation. I am also serving with her on one of the Select Committees. She has already made a contribution and I look forward to hearing what she has to say on this and many other subjects in the future.
I was a member of the Select Committee whose report is now before your Lordships. With the leave of the House, I therefore speak from the Back Benches instead of from my usual place on the Front Bench. I should like to commend the report, which has been so adequately and comprehensively summarised by our chairman, my noble friend Lady Lockwood. As she indicated, the committee was conscious from the very beginning of the importance of the task that it had been given. It devoted much time and attention to it. We heard a large number of witnesses and looked at much evidence. That is included in what I consider to be a very good report.
We were in no doubt when we started that the issue of vocational training is crucial to future economic success. Our Continental neighbours—those with more successful and productive economies than ours —have devoted a great deal of time and attention to training. They have rightly regarded it as a long-term investment and it is paying off.
Perhaps I may quote from a talk given recently to the third training and enterprise college conference this year by a Berlin academic. It appears in the current issue of the Employment Gazette. She told the conference that in Germany productivity per worker is 60 per cent. higher than in the UK and wages 70 per cent. higher. Some 65 per cent. of German workers have completed two years of vocational training compared with 25 per cent. in Britain. About one-third of young people stay in full-time education at the age of 18 compared with only one-fifth in our county. About 70 per cent. of German school leavers take apprenticeships. Reference is made in our report
440
to the training and re-training programmes undertaken in both Germany and France. We were often told in the course of our investigations that Britain lacks a training culture. Yet years ago we had a skill and craft tradition in this country. What has gone wrong?
As our report indicates, the Government have embarked upon a new initiative. They seem to have concluded that the old structures are too bureaucratic and do not work. Hence industrial training boards —with the exception of the construction industry training board, and that for only a limited three-year period—have become non-statutory bodies. The Manpower Services Commission was first transformed into the Training Commission and now has been discontinued altogether. The Government are pinning their hopes on a voluntary approach which they believe must be employer-led and for which employers will largely foot the bill.
The Government seem to have a rooted objection to anything tripartite. Does that stem from a deeply-rooted hostility to trade unions? In the Community the co-operation of the social partners—its name for employees' organisations—is actively sought and encouraged. However, unions in the UK have always been willing to play an active part in encouraging training initiatives.
I recently received from the TUC a document entitled Joint Action over Training. It contains details of a number of joint agreements reached by unions with employers. For example, I refer to a joint union agreement at Fords, an agreement a t British Gas, agreements about transferring skills—training women for jobs previously regarded as career jobs for men in the finance industries—and, interestingly, an initiative at European level between unions and employers to provide qualifications for employees in the retail industry, such qualifications to be recognised throughout Europe. That is a European-based initiative. So although cold-shouldered by the UK Government, unions in the UK have been getting on with the job which their colleagues on the Continent have been doing for some years.
I referred earlier to the disappearance of industry training boards and their substitution by non-statutory bodies. Although we have not dealt with it specifically in the report, I believe it is important to strengthen the role of industry training organisations. The industry/sector level features in both the French and the German training systems. However, following the abolition of the statutory boards, the industry training organisations are in the main small organisations without much in the way of resources, and of course they are entirely employer-led.
The statutory boards were specifically charged with the task of raising the quality of training within firms and had statutory powers to achieve this. The new ITOs do not have that task and it is not clear that the TECs are to assume that role either. ITOs should be asked to set training targets for their sectors, and research and monitoring functions should receive adequate public funding.

441
I still have the concern that I have voiced in this House from time to time that the special projects undertaken by the Engineering Industry Training Board—with specific reference to projects for women —will not be carried out by the successor body or indeed by anyone else. What, I ask again, is to happen to the money that used to be obtained from the European Social Fund? With that money the Engineering Industry Training Board was able to embark upon such projects as training for women, and so on.
Our report makes reference to the importance of training for women, and it is hoped that all concerned with training will take this objective very seriously. I am very anxious about the reports of training problems arising from the beginning of the recession, because it seems to me that women's training always suffers if there is a recession. I hope that steps will be taken to ensure that this simply does not happen this time around.
Your Lordships will note that in our report we say that the Government should play a more prominent role in encouraging access to training, particularly for women and women returners. In that area, support services—childcare, parental leave, and so on—are particularly important. Your Lordships will note that we have argued in the report for legislative underpinning, and this has been referred to by a number of speakers already.
Far too many people leave school and go directly into unskilled dead-end employment, and employment without any regulations to protect them either. We believe that young people between the ages of 16 to 18 should either be in full-time education or on an approved training course. That would give young people here the same grounding as that provided in France or Germany.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, raised the whole question of the older worker, because the resources available in the older work force are often ignored and all too many of them some years ago were given early retirement or redundancy—again, at a time of unemployment. But they have skills and experience to offer and they should not be ignored in training programmes either.
Our report emphasises the need for very much more to be done, and in the main is in support of the commission's proposals. In particular, we want to see a national strategy. With the abolition of the training agency, there is no national body with overall responsibility and with a clear and authoritative national voice. Personally, I believe that that is necessary. Although there have been some developments in recent years that we can all applaud—the establishment of the National Council for Voluntary Qualifications, for example; and I was extremely impressed by the evidence we received, oral and written, from the NCVQ—it is quite clear that a great deal remains to be done in that area.
I hope that our report gives a lead and that what we have said will be taken very seriously by the
442
Government. We have had a great skills tradition in former times in this country. After all, we sit in this marvellous Chamber this evening surrounded by evidence of the work of the skilled craftspeople of previous generations. There is no reason why, given the resources and the will, we should not once again be able to say that our skill—the Made in Britain label —is something of which we can all be proud. But I emphasise that there is the need for resources.
I note that the Vice-President of the Institute of Personnel Management recently voiced the view that more money had to be available and even raised again the prospect of some form of training levy. In the same newspaper, on the same day, there was a report about the need of TECs for more resources and concern about the cutting of resources that has taken place. We are simply not spending enough and, as we have said in our report, it should be looked upon not as expenditure but as investment—an investment that we simply cannot afford not to make. I commend the report to your Lordships.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on her excellent maiden speech.
The Select Committee's report on training makes sombre reading when one reads the extent to which this country appears to be lagging behind our competitors in Europe and elsewhere. In 1987 in Germany, 93 per cent. of school-leavers started further education, and 88 per cent. gained qualifications. Despite the fact that UK employers spent £18 billion on training in 1986–87—that is 2 per cent. of labour costs—plus a further £3 billion by Government aimed at the young and the unemployed, no less than 52 per cent. of the workforce had received no training. I ask your Lordships to compare France, with 35 per cent. of school leavers reaching university standard, and 30 per cent. in Germany, with a paltry 15 per cent. in Britain.
The CBI task force, we are told, has found the UK workforce to be uneducated, undertrained and underqualified—a very serious indictment. Only half the employees had O-levels. That is an astonishing figure if it is true. British children seem to achieve fewer and lower educational levels and qualifications than most member states. British adults have fewer vocational qualifications and at lower levels than our trading partners—little wonder when seven out of 10 British school-leavers leave school at the minimum leaving age.
The same proportion have only the shortest training before starting their first job or have no training at all. Meanwhile, nine out of 10 of all German employees have vocational qualifications based on a three-year apprentice-type course. In Britain, only one-tenth come near to that category. I find these figures difficult to accept, and I hope that I have misread the report.
There have been various initiatives in the UK, ranging from industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission and now to the

443
Training Enterprise Council. Those who have seen the operations on the ground cannot fail to have been impressed by the dedication and valuable work done at these training workshops.
The most important of the programmes have been the YTS, the ET and now the YT. ET is quoted as being the biggest training programme for the unemployed in the world. Youth training has cost around £900 million and has been a great success, with 89 per cent. of completers gaining jobs or going into further education.
We have often heard how the young have been made to sweep the floors when on training secondment to employers and how they are used as cheap labour. No doubt there have been cases where this has happened. But I know from experience and from talking to other employers that the vast majority of them go to great lengths to do their best to give the youngsters in their charge as interesting and as varied a time as they can within the confines of their business operation. It is a great pity that some of the schemes have been given a bad name due to the thoughtless conduct of a very small minority of employers.
The White Paper, Employment for the 1990s, states that radical reform of the training system is needed. All the witnesses, including the CBI, the ACC and the TUC, agree about the need for more training and for further training throughout a man's working life. Yet while other governments both in and beyond the Community are increasing their expenditure on training, the UK Government are decreasing their funding from £2,661 million in 1987–88 to a planned £2,399 million in 1991–92. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can say how this drop can be justified.
The paragraphs on training targets are interesting. South Korea aims by the year 2000 to have 80 per cent. of its school-leavers reaching university entrance standard. France aims at 75 per cent. It seems that our aim, according to page 15 of the report, is only 30 per cent.
We must set ourselves targets that are similar to or better than those of our competitors, and we must go all out to achieve them. It is no good for labour to claim wages equal to those of Europeans if the quality of their work, through lack of education, disallows them from earning as much per man in output. That is the way to national decline, eventual low wages and low standards of living. If we believe in competition, we must compete.
What are the targets for school-leavers in terms of qualification by the year 2000? It is refreshing to read about the TECs. They are undoubtedly making a major contribution to training, and there is every indication that they are going to be highly successful. We have a TEC in my county. It is interesting to see where the school-leavers first go on leaving school: 10 per cent. went straight to a job; 40 per cent. went to youth training; 30 per cent. went to 6th form; 12 per cent. went to further education, and only 3 per cent.
444
went to unemployment. Those figures are a great improvement on the main figures contained in the report.
Of some 3,000 people in youth training on the two year course from April to December, 333 received NVQ at the 1–2 level and only 23 on the 3–4 level. At the higher levels that is a small amount.
There is a national consensus in Germany that all school-leavers should receive vocational training, with a year's free vocational training for those who are backward or who are late developers. There is not the same support in the UK where there is a tendency for some parents to want their children to go out to work at the first opportunity to bring in a wage, regardless of the long-term damage to their earning ability. That is particularly true of some of the poorer families where the need to supplement the family income is highest but where the need for education is also the highest. Some of them oppose education and encourage their young to do likewise. Exhortation is not enough; there must be a change in the cultural attitude to training with incentives that will appeal to those poorer families.
There is a host of youngsters who have opted out of education, who are perhaps playing truant or who are late developers. There are 900 truants in my county. They are all heading for a wasted life on social security; yet many, if not most, of them have great potential, if only they could be "switched on" at the right point in their lives. I mentioned in debate recently the case of Osmond House in Birmingham which is run by Barnardo's. It seems to have found a way of attracting tearaways into the classroom. Perhaps there is something to be learnt from their methods. Adolescent resource centres also pick up a number of them.
There is a great potential of talent that is being wasted. It is essential not only for them but for the nation that they should be tempted back into the classroom or the workshop in order to fulfil themselves and make their contribution to the future of the nation.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the skill and courtesy with which she has led us through this inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in a very good speech, if I may say so, referred to the unanimity of opinion between the TUC and the CBI, within the committee and on behalf of the Government that we as a country are disastrously behind our competitors in vocational training. Various suggestions have been advanced to explain that state of affairs. The Government in their reply to our report state that no amount of government activity can make an impact unless employers view training as an investment essential to business success. Similarly, individuals need to perceive how training will benefit them. Fundamental changes in attitude are necessary.

445
In wondering why attitudes to training are as they are, I am very much seduced by the opinion of Adrian Wooldridge as expressed in the pamphlet Education and the Labour Market. He states:
"The performance of a sophisticated economy is increasingly dependent not on its fund of physical capital but on its capacity to mobilise the brain-power of its citizens. Shortages of properly-trained brain-power will prevent economic growth in the next century just as surely as did shortages of raw materials in the last. This is hardly good news for the United Kingdom. Britain has proved singularly bad at training and mobilising the brain-power of the mass of its citizens—not least because the intellectual Mandarins who created our educational system in the mid-nineteenth century and the radical academics who reshaped it in the mid-twentieth shared one belief in common: that the world of commerce is beneath consideration".
I should like to refer to a couple of points raised in the report. First, there is emphasis on the fact that vocational training will work only if it leads to higher productivity. I have the privilege to be a director of a company called Center Pares. We build and run holiday villages in Holland and in this country. Some of the properties are look-alike and they are structured and managed in the same way. I regret to have to tell your Lordships that in the case of certain jobs the productivity of the Dutch workers is 60 per cent. higher than for those doing the equivalent job in this country. My Dutch colleagues look at me across the board table and ask how it can be that British workers are so much less productive. The only explanation that I can give them is lack of training.
Higher productivity is essential because it creates viability within an enterprise, enabling it to pay for training and to have some reward for carrying it out. It is also tremendously important because it enables the employee to get more job satisfaction and more money out of the job.
If I may go off at a tangent, I should like to refer to the training programme which is carried out at Disneyland in America. I believe that it is an extremely well run company. All employees, whatever their jobs will be, whether sweeping the streets or cleaning the toilets, are given at least a week's inductory training. The theme of the training is "Your job is making people happy". Therefore, one hopes that the members of that workforce get job satisfaction.
As a result of training there is also a need for better management, and that in itself requires training. We always come back to the question of training.
One point which concerned me and which is a demotivating factor to many employers in relation to training is the fear that employees having been trained will be poached by competitive enterprises. There is the possibility of intercontinental poaching, which is a terrifying prospect. I raised that matter with every witness that I could. I was surprised that the witnesses to a man or a woman said that this was not a problem. In the better businesses the training ethos and the fact that they actually offer training create an environment in which employees tend to stay; they perceive a training culture within the enterprise that gives them the opportunity to better their position and gain
446
increasing job satisfaction. Therefore, it would appear that poaching is not a problem if career development is linked with training in a well managed business.
The final point that I should like to raise relates to the type of training. There is the specific type of training; for example, teaching somebody to make widgets, how to lay a table or whatever the job may be. Those skills must be taught within the industry and they are job specific.
However, we are now told by the experts that during their lifetime young people growing up today are likely to have two, three, four or even five different job activities because of technological change. Therefore, it is extremely important to give them the necessary portable skills, particularly in the early part of their lives, which apply to every kind of activity and industry in which they are likely to find themselves.
The most important of those is interpersonal skills and being able to relate and communicate with other people, whether one wishes to sell something, buy something, get along with people, work with them and so on. The most important person to understand is oneself. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he can give me an assurance when he replies that interpersonal skills are part of the national curriculum and of the syllabus of all national vocational qualifications.
6.50 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Flather on her excellent and well-balanced maiden speech.
I very much welcome this report on vocational training relating to the European Community proposals, with its constructive recommendations which are almost all relevant to the United Kingdom. European Community interest on this subject adds extra urgency to the need to set our own house in order. I shall quote no figures because other noble Lords have done so and the case is very well documented. However, as regards training and further training, we are behind most of our main competitors. I have had first-hand experience of that in Japan and Germany.
It is quite true that the Government have been active in implementing new programmes of training over the past few years. This year government expenditure was £2.5 billion, which should be seen in the context of some £18 billion spent by industry. However, we cannot be complacent. We have a very long way to go to meet industry's needs in the highly competitive markets of today. Already the shortage of skilled people is a bottleneck in improving innovation in design, manufacturing and marketing, and so we are prevented from keeping ahead of competition over a broad front.
I believe that a necessary condition for success, as suggested in paragraph 89 of the report, is to regard the cost of training as an investment and not a cost. That expenditure should be disclosed in company accounts, just as it is now necessary to disclose expenditure on research and development under the new standard accounting practice No. 13.

447
As I have said already, the Government have put forward many constructive initiatives on training. I believe that NCVQ is one of the most valuable. However, there have been too many changes. There have been the community programme, YTS, ET, TECs and many others over the past few years. That makes great difficulties for those involved in providing training. There have also been changes in funding which create further problems. I am a trustee of a training organisation based mostly in the North. There are six or seven centres around the country with an excellent record. One centre has been given an award for a high standard of training. However, we now find it very difficult to operate with the reduced funding levels. Almost inevitably that will result in the curtailment of the scale of our training programme. That seems to be extraordinary when there is an enormous unsatisfied demand for training places.
Another problem is that programmes, although excellent, are somewhat fragmented. I very much welcome the recommendation endorsed in paragraph 92 of the report that,
"in the United Kingdom there is an urgent need to bring together the education, training and employment of young people in a coherent framework which can be understood by employers, parents, educators and trainers and, above all, by the young people themselves."
There is much common sense and importance in that.
I welcome very much the emphasis at paragraph 91 on the need for consensus between employers and trade unions as regards training. It would be better still if there could be consensus among political parties. Is that too idealistic an aim? Is it too naive to suggest that? I hope and believe that it is not. If we in the United Kingdom are divided, how will it be possible to compete with our European competitors who will be united in a common purpose on the importance of training?
I should like to see a more Cross-Bench approach to training and continuation training. That would be a very constructive approach to these important matters where the objective is in no way a party matter. We may disagree somewhat on the method of funding and the priorities, but the ultimate objective of increasing the skill of the workforce in industry is not a party issue. It would also help towards continuity of policy. It is very encouraging to see evidence of that consensus in our debate in your Lordships' House today.
Paragraph 94 suggests that more emphasis should be given to forecasting future skill shortages and training requirements. I am rather doubtful whether that is wise if taken too far. It has been tried before. Surely it is better to provide a very wide range of good training programmes and opportunities because that would be more effective in achieving a broad level of competence and flexibility in the workforce, as is recommended in paragraph 99.
Finally, I strongly support the vital need for continuation of training throughout the working life. There should be a scheme to fund personal expenditure on continuation training. At present a company can fund such training and obtain tax relief
448
upon it but an individual must pay for his own education in order to keep up to date during his working life. It would also be a help to have in any list of qualified people an indication of those who have maintained their knowledge through continuation training. For example, in the register of qualified engineers maintained by the Engineering Council it would be quite easy to indicate on the list those who had undertaken some re-training at intervals of not less than, say, three years.
This excellent report shows how matters are moving in Europe. In spite of many constructive initiatives by Her Majesty's Government, in many ways we are still well behind our competitors in training an adequate number of skilled people. Therefore, there is a need for continuing pressure to build on the present schemes and to ensure their effectiveness. Both industry and government have a part to play. I hope that the report will act as a valuable stimulant to both, thus ensuring that adequate investment is made in this priceless asset—a well-motivated and skilled workforce.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, my noble friends Lord Rochester and Lord Bonham-Carter have made it abundantly clear how strongly we on these Benches support the main thrust and recommendations of the report. I shall not bore your Lordships' House by repeating what they have said or, indeed, by repeating the points which I seem to have made ad nauseam since I came into your Lordships' House nearly 20 years ago on the urgent need—urgent then and urgent still—to improve the level of training.
I was chairman of the earlier committee on vocational training for young persons in the EC and of your Lordships' committee on unemployment, both of which dealt with the need for training. I must confess that any sponsorship by me seems to lead nowhere at all. Let us hope that this report will have greater success.
Before proceeding, I should like to say how delighted I was to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. That was a second speech from a Baroness not born in this country, but plainly bringing to your Lordships' house great richness and addition to the debates that we hold.
Instead of covering the ground which has already been so well explored during the debate and in the report, I shall raise one or two points which may have been raised but which have not been stressed to the extent that they might be. The first point is that in the modern world the kind of training we need for the youngsters leaving school will not be possible unless the people doing the training are able to build on a sound educational base. The inability to train adequately is linked to the failures in our schools.
This is not the debate to go into the ways in which the school position can be improved. However, there is a link between competency in schools and training. That involves funding, support for teachers, and all the other matters we have discussed so often that are essential if we are to be effective on the training front.

449
The days when training meant teaching people to do the limited tricks of a limited trade are long past. What is needed are people who are literate, numerate and have communications skills. Above all, they must be able to learn and be confident that they are able to learn. It is confidence in learning that is lacking in many people, largely because they have not been successful in any other previous educational experience. They believe that they are not capable of learning the things with which they are confronted.
We therefore start with education. I wish to make one particular point; it is a specialised point but not an unimportant one. The report stems from a European Community recommendation. We are talking of industry and training within the context of the European Community and the world of 1992 and beyond. We in this country are also discussing changes in A-levels. That is an important part of the training of people who are coming up for the more responsible and senior jobs in the country. But it is extraordinary that we never speak of the importance of the international baccalaureate. If we are considering revising A-levels, and as we are now seeing ourselves as part of the European Community, we should be making the international baccalaureate available to far more people than at present.
The other day I asked a question of someone working in this field and was told—although it may not be true, and I sincerely hope it is not—that there are only 20 schools in this country providing the international baccalaureate. Yet that is a very important starting point for the increasing number of people who will wish to do some of their training and qualification in universities outside of this country. That is the kind of opportunity and scope which reverts to medieval days—we will leave that on one side for the moment; I agree training would be rather different—but which people would be able to have if they started with the international baccalaureate.
When the Education Reform Bill was being debated, I asked whether the requirements of the GCSE were such that it would enable or hinder people if they wished to do the international baccalaureate. I never received a clear answer then and would be glad to know now whether the Government have any interests in that, in view of the growing importance of European qualifications. If not, are they prepared to look at it and see whether anything can be done on that front?
We move, as many people mentioned, from basic education to the question of the 16 to 18 year-olds. We on these Benches have long advocated that those years should be years of learning rather than years of producing. Therefore we welcome the threefold option that is put forward in the report either to stay on full-time in school, to have full-time training outside school or a job in which the emphasis is on training and not on producing, and which training leads to a recognised qualification.
That scheme is excellent. But there is one possible snag; that arises if the immediate economic advantages of those three options are very different. If
450
one were to be very much worse off by staying at school rather than taking a job with training and the possibility that one will obtain some NVC qualification, I fear a considerable number of people will not stay on at school. On the other hand—to use the boringly overworked phrase—if a level playing field existed between the three options, those people may choose to stay on at school. I am reminded of a student of mine from a working class family who said to me, "There is an awful row going on in our family. My parents want my younger brother to go to university the same as I did. He wants to leave school now as his eldest brother did because his eldest brother now has a Jaguar". As long as there are economic advantages in leaving school and going into a job which provides more immediate financial return, we shall not have choices based on the real value of the three options; they will be based on the immediate rewards to the people concerned.
That means looking at youth payment levels. That subject was touched on in the report but perhaps not explored so far as it might be. I always thought it was a great pity that we brought the adult age for males down from 21 to 18. That was largely a by-product —totally unanticipated—of the Equal Pay Act. I shall say no more about that for the moment. It means that within two years of leaving school, youngsters are entitled to the full adult rate of pay.
One reason why German apprenticeships have been so much more sought after and effective is that the level of pay for apprentices has not been in competition with what they receive if they stay on at school, and is nothing like as much as if they were in full-time work. That is a nettle which will be unpopular in some quarters; but it will certainly have to be grasped if we really mean that there is to be a free choice between those three options.
Youngsters of from 16 to 18 are enormously important. But they are by no means the whole of the population requiring training or re-training. Due to the inadequacy of our training in the past we have a huge backlog of untrained people in our labour force. We need to invest money and resources inside industry where many of those people now are and where training can be given. People could be promoted to jobs where there are vacancies but where training has not previously been provided. Some training could be done in that way; but a great deal must be done by the Government making provision for training of mature and adult people. Needless to say that must include the mature women available to come back into the labour market.
Other speakers mentioned that topic and the particular requirements of that group. I should like to emphasise that a great many girls, when they left school in the past, took training which was a great deal below what they were capable of doing. They did not realise how inadequate that training was in relation to their potential. As they grow older they do realise, and they need encouragement and help to break through from what they did in the past. That does not mean doing a quick training course in shorthand and typing, which they did when they were 16. They recognise that

451
they are capable of doing something far more ambitious provided always that the resources are there to enable them to do it.
The resources include resources for fees for part-time and full-time mature students. They also need some assistance with maintenance. Not all husbands of women who wish to return to work are wildly enthusiastic about it. Their enthusiasm would be enhanced, if not encouraged, from the start if the wives who were going through the training were not a financial drain on their families and were fully able to finance themselves. If we mean business by making the best use of the labour market, we must not be cheese-paring in the provisions and opportunities that we offer to the mature woman wishing to return to training.
Those are not the only groups that we should be considering. There are a number of special needs groups in which investment in the longer run can be very well worthwhile. One of the great problems is that it is so difficult to get this Government to look at the longer term rather than the short-term and the short-term pay-off.
The ethnic minorities have already been mentioned. There is no question whatever that, distributed as they are in industry and commerce, members of ethnic minorities are achieving at different levels of employment way below what they are capable of doing. They need special training and encouragement. After all, the equal opportunities legislation permits of special training provision for people who have been unable to take advantage of training or of the opportunities offered to them in the past.
Because of my particular connection with the training of ex-offenders, I wish to point out that additional financial expenditure can make an enormous difference to people who might otherwise go into a permanent life of crime. They can be diverted into being very useful and productive citizens if they turned their undoubted skills and wits to more socially acceptable activities. They will not do that unless there is adequate finance for training. Very often it takes a much longer time to train people with that kind of disability than it does to train the ordinary school-leaver or young person.
So much for the different categories of people for whom special provision is required. I make no bones about it; it means more government investment. I wish to underline the recommendation made by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, to see the provision as investment and not current expenditure. That is what it undoubtedly is. We have to face how all this expenditure is to be financed. I was attracted by the account of what is being done in France. I recognise that the levy grant scheme got out of hand and became too bureaucratic. It was a very considerable and unnecessary burden in a number of cases.
However, I do not like the idea that we want to encourage every employer to train. A great many of them are incapable of doing so. Modern training is a highly sophisticated business. It is not just a matter of showing a youngster how things can be done. People
452
who carry out training need to know how to do it. A very great many—not only the smaller employers—are not equipped or capable of training. We do not want to encourage just anybody to train.
The old idea of the levy and grant was surely right. Either you train or you pay instead of training. The companies which are training should pay for their own needs. There is no reason why they should pay to meet other employers' needs. However, the companies which train should get some benefit from training in excess of what is required. The French scheme warrants being looked at very closely. A percentage of the pay roll should be devoted to training. If that money is not spent then it should be collected by the Government as a tax which can then be paid to the people who are doing the training. That is a sensible way, but it is only one particular way, although it is very well worth considering in order to meet the costs of training.
I now turn to the question of the TECs and what training should be given. There was reference in the report to a national plan. I am all for a national strategy for training, but I give a word of warning about national plans for meeting labour shortages. There is no such thing as a national labour market except for a very few highly qualified occupations where people move around the country. There is a vast number of local labour markets. When I was chairman of the area board in Buckinghamshire, even within that area there were three quite distinct labour markets; namely, Milton Keynes, High Wycombe and Aylesbury. It was quite useless providing training in Milton Keynes for people intending to work in High Wycombe. The workers would not have gone anyway. There were quite different labour markets.
I do not believe that money spent in studying a national labour market is useful because there is no such thing. What is enormously important is detailed studies of the local labour market. They should be carried out by the TECs but that requires money. For the task to be done properly it has to be done not only once, but it has to be constantly repeated and updated. The TECs should be able to employ people who know about studying the local labour market, studying training needs and constantly revise their plans.
When I was studying what the national labour market board was doing in Sweden some years ago, I was told that the representatives of the labour market went back to the companies every three months in order to discover how their needs had changed. The training was adapted accordingly. That is a continuous and expensive process. It means that training is done for what is required and not for what is not required. I urge the Government to look into this question, and to finance the TECs properly so that they can do this all-important job.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on her maiden speech. I completely share her concern about the very important need to train the ethnic minorities in this country. It is a subject which is dear

453
to my heart through my membership of the Fullemploy board, an organisation which has been dedicated for many years to the training needs of the black and Asian community. I welcome the publication of the Select Committee's report on Vocational Training and Re-training. I welcome it because its recommendations are eminently sensible. I hope that we shall hear shortly from the noble Viscount that he too welcomes it and that the Government will accept the committee's recommendations.
I welcome it also because many of its recommendations are completely in line with Labour Party policy. Finally, I welcome it because it is timely. It comes soon after the Government have inexplicably slashed the training budget in the Autumn Statement. Given the widespread concern about Britain's skills crisis, it is extraordinary that next year £300 million, which is about 10 per cent. of the budget, will be cut. Over the next year and the following one training will be cut by about £500 million altogether. These cuts do not come after a period of substantial increases in government spending on training. Over the five years from 1987 to 1992, it is estimated that we shall have seen cuts in real terms of about £1.6 billion, which is a third of the budget.
It is incredible that the Government should have been so shortsighted. It is also amazing that the targets set by the previous Secretary of State for Employment, Norman Fowler, shortly before he resigned—he is referred to in paragraph 50 of the report—should have been so rapidly abandoned by his successor. No adequate explanation has been given for this U-turn by the Government. Perhaps we shall be given one this afternoon.
Many TEC chairmen and members are dismayed, as noble Lords have said this afternoon, with the inadequate resources which will make it very difficult for them to deliver the training that we so desperately need. A number of speakers have made reference to the much better records of our European partners on vocational training, although the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that the starkness of the gap between the United Kingdom and other countries had not been brought out. I believe that my noble friend Lady Turner made up for that. Perhaps I may add to what she said.
For example, the report points out that by 1987 in the Federal Republic of Germany 93 per cent. of the school-leavers started an apprenticeship, further schooling or university education and approximately 88 per cent. of those obtained a qualification. The report tells us that in France in the same year, 1987, taking the workforce as a whole, one in four people had undergone some form of vocational training. The situation in Britain contrasts starkly with most of Europe. What is frightening is that whatever the Government may say about improvements, we are continuing to fall further behind day by day. Countries such as France and Germany are making improvements all the time and are doing so at a faster rate than we are.
454
I shall give a few of the statistics which caused concern to the Select Committee and which are also causing a great deal of concern among responsible employers and those who represent them in the CBI and elsewhere and in the trade union movement. First, 70 per cent. of the British population left school at the minimum school-leaving age. Secondly, 70 per cent. of the British workforce had only a very short training in their first job. Thirdly, 70 per cent. of the British workforce have had virtually no training since. Fourthly, in 1989 a third of the British workforce had had no training whatsoever at any point in their working life. Fifthly, one in five employers still provides no training for its staff. Sixthly, according to the Industrial Society, 58 per cent. of personnel managers had not heard of the NVQ system, let alone taken part in it, four years after the National Council for Vocational Qualifications was set up. Seventhly, according to the Department of Employment's own study, half its sample of employees—it was a large sample—identified their own training needs which were not being met. Eighthly, 40 per cent. of them expected to get no further training for the rest of their lives, so their expectations about what would be offered were extremely low. Ninthly, every year at least 100,000 school-leavers start work without any training. Tenthly, the lack of vocational training for adults is in no way compensated for by a high proportion of the workforce with a high level of educational qualifications. Only about 25 per cent. of school-leavers obtain the necessary qualifications to go into higher education.
My noble friend Lady David referred to the BTEC and argued that this is a way of keeping more pupils in the system by allowing them to gain the qualifications necessary to enter post-school education. I very much agree with her. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the international baccalaureate. I suggest that the Government should look at something even more radical than either BTEC or the international baccalaureate. I refer to the document of the Institute for Public Policy Research on the setting up of a British baccalaureate which would be quite different from the international baccalaureate and would allow young people from many different levels of ability to study for the same qualification. It would remove the divisive and muddled nature of qualifications for the 16 to 19 age group. Perhaps I should have declared an interest as I am the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the IPPR.
I have given just 10 indications of the depth of our problem and the steepness of the hill that we have to climb to get out of this unfortunate situation. Is it any wonder that we have staggering skill shortages in our workforce? For example, there is a desperate shortage of technicians and a serious shortage of mechanical and electrical engineers. Various surveys of employers have been carried out in investigating recruitment problems. A Training Commission study in 1989 showed that nearly half the firms in its sample had experienced recruitment difficulties during the year and 40 per cent. of them had reported severe problems.

455
We now have a huge skills gap, yet the Government calmly slice huge sums off the training budget. What a funny old world, to use the words of the previous Prime Minister. Many of the major skill shortages are in key areas of manufacturing where Britain's balance of payments problem is greatest. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, referred to a lack of skills leading to bottlenecks in relation to better design and other innovations. I agree with him. How in heaven's name will we improve our lamentable economic performance while this continues? Perhaps the Minister can advise us.
The noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Rochester, suggested that our economic decline will continue unless we have more training. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Flather, referred to the value of training in increasing productivity and in industrial competitiveness. That is common sense, yet it seems to have escaped the Government.
I should like to pick out some of the report's recommendations for a comprehensive strategic framework for training. The committee rightly identified the lack of such a framework and the need for one supported by both sides of industry. Achieving such support should not be too difficult, and both the CBI and the TUC are in favour of developing such a framework. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady David pointed out, there is a remarkable consensus between them on what needs to be done. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, wanted a consensus among the parties. I would very much welcome a consensus among the political parties but I fear that it is the Conservative Party and the Government who seem to be out of line with everyone else.
The Government are out of line in Europe too, abstaining on the Commission's FORCE programme when it was adapted earlier this year. In this context the committee was quite right to criticise the Government's failure to recognise that effectively managed vocational training is an investment and not a cost The Government seem obsessed with what they see as the problem of employment costs. As other noble Lords have asked, why do not the Government realise that there is a large return on spending on training?
It would be helpful if the Minister could comment in detail on each of the 10 points put forward by the committee. I should like to focus in particular on three or four of them. First, will the Government restate the national targets which they set earlier, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, have asked? Surely the committee is right in advocating such targets. There would then be a clear set of goals for which we could all work, and we could monitor progress as we went along. As the committee pointed out, other countries have benefited from a benchmark against which to measure success.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, mentioned the importance of NCVQ. Will the Government encourage the NCVQ to do more to promote broad-based competence? They might possible link additional government funding, which the council
456
needs, to progress being made in the promotion of broad-based competence, including the interpersonal skills, to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, rightly drew attention.
Thirdly, will the Government consider setting up some kind of inquiry, either within the government machine or involving outside experts, into paid educational leave? The committee suggests that,
"after over a century of criticism of the United Kingdom's voluntarily based system of vocational training",
legislation on this subject may have to be considered over the next few years. Such legislation will almost certainly be needed sooner rather than later because of the poor record of so many employers in releasing people for training. The committee has pointed out the need for further consideration of how to define a statutory right to such leave. Will the Government get to work on this as a matter of urgency?
Finally, can the Minister say how the Government intend to handle the question of providing incentives over and above training credits? On these Benches we welcome the initiative that has been taken in setting up training credits. Tax allowances, which are clearly extremely desirable, have already been referred to in the debate, but the committee also made reference to discretionary maintenance allowances, to which no previous speaker has referred. It was thought that they might be especially helpful to the disadvantaged. On the subject of the disadvantaged, I understand that the TECs can now encourage Re-start interviewers to regard job clubs and Re-start courses as the first option for the long-term unemployed rather than training.
Knowing how the system works, and the huge government incentives to TECs to limit employment training to people who could quickly be placed with an employer with an employment contract to save on training allowances, there must be a fear that training will become increasingly less available to the long-term unemployed, many of whom desperately need it. If that were to happen, they would become one of the most disadvantaged groups in our community, along with some of the other groups which have already been identified by the committee and other noble Lords, such as the least qualified workers, the disabled and women returners, for whom improved access to training is vitally important. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to special needs groups. But among such groups are the long-term unemployed. I rather regret the fact that the committee did not refer to them.
The committee raised many issues about the current position with respect to vocational training in the United Kingdom. It is justifiably critical of our record in comparison with the rest of Europe. It concludes that legislation should be introduced to ensure that all—I emphasise "all"—l6 to 18 year-olds are provided with either education or training. Many speakers referred to that aspect this evening. The committee rightly proposes that employers should not just provide training for this group but should also be required by law to encourage training which leads to a recognised qualification. That would be a huge step

457
forward and would do a great deal to start the process of catching up with France, Germany and other European countries. It would at least eliminate one of the statistics which I gave earlier: the fact that 100,000 or more young people enter work with no training.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and others pointed out, there is a great deal to be done to ensure that adults in this country are both trained and re-trained. A voluntary system is not enough; we also need legislation. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to respond positively. Not one speaker today has argued against the need for statutory underpinning. It is only when we have this that we shall be able to get the clearly articulated framework identified by the committee which is needed to achieve the FORCE objectives. I hope that that will now be provided by the Government. Better late than never.
7.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I should like to begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Flather for her very admirable maiden speech. Although I detected a note of criticism in her well thought-out remarks, I took them to be entirely helpful. I look forward to many more timely and helpful contributions from her in future debates in your Lordships' House and in the work of its Select Committee.
Throughout history training has often made the difference between success and failure, victory and defeat. Three hundred and fifty years ago, during the Civil War, Oliver Cromwell created and trained his New Model Army. The king did not train his troops. As we all know, Cromwell won; and we all know what happened to the king. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Although today a lack of investment in training is unlikely to cost anyone his head, it may well cost us our competitiveness, our jobs and our economic well-being. That is why I am most grateful to the Select Committee—and especially to its chairman the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood—whose hard work, experience and expertise have contributed to the extensive and enlightening report before the House today.
However, let us consider the challenges with which we are faced; first of all, a highly competitive world market. Not only do we face the prospect—now only months away—of a Europe with no trade barriers; we also face competition from farther afield: from Japan and North America and the countries of the Pacific rim. Secondly, we are in the midst of a technological revolution on the scale of the industrial revolution which took place 180 years ago. Thirdly, we have fewer young people joining the labour market than at any time since the last war.
A principal answer to each of these challenges is training—training to create and maintain a highly skilled, flexible and well-motivated workforce which is the match of any of our competitors; training to ensure that we exploit to the full the opportunities created for us by new technology; training for all our
458
people at every level—now and throughout their working lives—to equip them to cope effectively with the changing demands of the world of work. In training our people, we must ensure that opportunities exist for all; for women, who will account for such a high proportion of those entering the workforce, especially the so-called women returners, who, having raised their children, wish to return to work; for disadvantaged people and the disabled; and for those from ethnic minorities.
The Government are committed to that aim extending—I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will be reassured to hear this—even to former offenders. We therefore welcome in particular the committee's interest in training and the rigour of its examination of the issues. The Government fully agree that ensuring an adequate supply of the skills we need is one of the major challenges which we as a nation face in the decade ahead.
The Government share and have expressed broad support for the aims of the FORCE programme, which formed a major starting-point for the Select Committee's report. We support the approach taken in the FORCE decision to support and complement policies and to continue training activities developed in member states. That takes account of the principle of subsidiarity and recognises that individual countries have training systems of their own which work well.
The Select Committee's central recommendation was that the Government should set the strategic framework within which training activities take place. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, enumerated the 10 points proposed by the committee for that framework. Rather than comment on those points in detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has asked me to do, I should like to concentrate upon the future as the Government's comments are now a matter of record.
The Government have done precisely that which has been requested: they have provided a strategic framework. This was set out in my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's strategy document entitled 1990s: The Skills Decade which was published in October. Noble Lords will find there a strategy which chimes with the committee's recommendation for the component of a strategic framework; indeed, it goes much further. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, should study the document carefully. I believe that he will find in it the strategy for which he has been looking.
The strategy has a clear aim of developing a workforce for the 1990s with skills which meet and beat the standards of the best in the world. It assigns clear responsibilities to the main players on the pitch; that is, government, employers, individuals and the new training and enterprise councils. It sets out six priorities: first, to improve employer investment in skills; secondly, to increase the skills of young people; thirdly, to involve individuals more in their own development; fourthly, to help people at a disadvantage in the job market; fifthly, to raise the quality of provision; and, finally, to encourage enterprise.

459
The Government's strategy goes well beyond the Select Committee's recommendations. It has a focus, which, if I may say so, is missing from the report. It is a focus on skills, not just on training; on individuals, not just on institutions; on local commitment, and not just on national planning.
On the matter of national planning, let us beware of national target setting that takes no account of how targets will be delivered on the ground. The committee recommended that the Government should set national targets for training. We believe that it would be a mistake for us to do so; it is employers who have the primary responsibility to train their people. In the main it will be employers' training performance which determines whether such objectives are reached. It follows therefore that targets for training are for employers to set and act upon. The CBI is doing just that. It has recently started consulting to secure agreement on targets and how they will be met.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and others asked whether the Government will endorse that initiative. The Government have welcomed the initiative, but to succeed we must all be clear about our individual roles. Government's role is to set a national policy framework and to create the infrastructure within which success can be achieved. We shall set ourselves targets for putting the framework in place; for example, for reforming our system of vocational qualifications. We are setting clear and specific targets for training and enterprise councils, which provide essential local support for what employers have to do.
TECs are in the front line of training. My noble friend Lady Flather rightly drew attention to their role in energising companies, the education system and others. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that TECs will have as much money to spend on training and enterprise next year as they are spending this year.
The key words with TECs are "local" and "employer-led". No longer will government impose nation al training and enterprise programmes upon local communities. What suits Durham will not suit Dorset. The needs of Cumbria are different from those of Kent. The 82 TECs which serve England and Wales take account of local needs. They will have the money and the flexibility to devise programmes which meet the needs of their local labour markets. They will be directed by people who understand those needs and who know what must be done to meet them: people from the local community, led by local employers who know about training and understand enterprise. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will be reassured that employers understand enterprise and are in no doubt of the value of education and training.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, was sceptical of the value of TECs and the commitment of those currently involved in their direction. The TECs have harnessed a huge tide of enthusiasm which those who believe that employers will train only if compelled to do so would not have believed. Even we have been surprised by the extent of their commitment. Two years ago, when my right honourable friend Margaret
460
Thatcher launched the TEC movement, we thought it would take four years to complete the national network. We were wrong. The network is complete now, two years ahead of schedule.
My noble friend Lady Flather asked that we set demanding targets and performance measures for TECs. She is right to do so. From the outset, we are managing TECs through their business plans in which we expect firm targets. The financing of TECs will depend increasingly upon their meeting stretching targets.
The TECs are the living proof that the Government's voluntary approach works better than any system based upon compulsion. And they have some strong foundations, laid by government, upon which to build. For example, our massive youth training programme is unmatched throughout Europe. We are pushing back the frontiers again by piloting the unique approach of training credits, which put purchasing power and the incentive to train in the hands of young people.
Let there be no doubt that youth training has been a resounding success. In the past seven years it has trained more than 2·5 million youngsters; 90 per cent. of those who complete their training go into jobs, further education or training, and 67 per cent. of them leave with a qualification. I am sure that even the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will be pleased by that success. It is a far cry from the days of 1979 when such a high proportion of our 16 year-olds left school with no qualifications and went into jobs without training.
That is not the only improvement. Since 1979 there has also been a 36 per cent. increase in the number of students in higher education, a 29 per cent. increase in the number in further education; and 22 per cent. more 16 year-olds are in full-time further education than was the case in 1979—an improvement indeed.
The Government's voluntary approach and our training and education reforms are enjoying real success, which is why the committee's recommendation that employers should be obliged to arrange a programme of training for 16 to 18 year-olds is inappropriate. That is the answer to the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, in her letter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The reform of our entire system of vocational qualifications is one often overlooked but vital and radical component of our policy. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, drew attention to that important area in the work of the national council. Since 1986 work has been going on in virtually every sector of industry, commerce and public administration to create simple statements of occupational competence. Those standards, produced by representatives of each industry or occupational group, will then form the basis of national vocational qualifications—qualifications which will measure competence at work, not the ability to pass exams; which clearly state what any individual can do and point the way to the next qualification up the ladder; which encourage individuals to climb that ladder of opportunity by

461
increasing their skills; and which test practical competence and take no account of how that competence was learned, whether through school, college or training course, off-the-job or on-the-job training or perhaps by open learning, in which this country leads the world. It is a system of qualifications which is more flexible than any system owned by our competitors. It is as flexible as the labour market which it seeks to serve.
I should like now to respond to as many as I can of the points raised in a wide-ranking debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, pressed the recommendation contained in the report of a personal income tax allowance for people who train at their own expense. Your Lordships will know that tax is a matter for the Chancellor. He is aware of the recommendation contained in the report. I shall of course bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the comments made during the course of the debate. The Government share the noble Baroness's interest in encouraging people to take more responsibility for their own training and development. Indeed, we are developing other forms of encouragement through career development loans and training credits as a way of giving individuals purchasing power for training and open learning systems in which, as I said, we lead the world. I am sure that that will please my noble friend Lord Caldecote who asked for such projects.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, asked about the provision of child care facilities. Apart from those provided by employers, I can confirm that further child care facilities are available to lone parents on employment training. From next April, TECs will be free to extend that support even further.
My noble friend Lady Flather and the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Blackstone, rightly drew attention to the need for equal opportunities for minority groups. TECs are expected to address and meet the needs of minority ethnic communities in their areas. People from such communities are taking advantage of our training programmes in a disproportionate way. I include the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. Women too are well represented in our training programmes. The Government are fully committed to providing such opportunities. It is just not the case that TECs have incentives not to help disadvantaged groups, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said. On the contrary, they have clear targets to help special needs groups and performance bonuses for exceeding them.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked what part the Government were playing in youth training as well as employment training. On 7th December this year there were 172 young people occupying a training placement in my department's youth training programme alone. Between January 1988 and June 1990 120 trainees obtained NVQ level two; and five trainees obtained NVQ level three, mainly in business administration. There are numerous YT success stories, of which I give one example. A young woman on a Department of Employment YTS programme in Sheffield obtained an NVQ level two, followed by a
462
BTEC national in computer studies. She has since left the scheme to join the RAF as an air traffic controller. So the Government are playing their part and our department is playing its part in the programme.
It is a mistake to complain about cuts in government spending on training as did the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. The Government are making a massive investment. Our spending on training has risen by 60 per cent. in real terms over the past five years. I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on her figures. Unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. In these circumstances, it is right to see a small adjustment now.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, quoted a drop in expenditure on training in some parts of the north. The evidence is that training by employers has increased by 70 per cent. over the past five years. The CBI survey showed training by employers holding up despite the current downturn.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, my noble friend says that the numbers have increased. Can he say whether the numbers given in paragraph 46 are incorrect? It is misleading.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was talking about figures over five years. I said earlier in my speech that the money for TECs would be the same in spending power as this year. Contrary to previous experience, employers are spending about 8 per cent. of payroll on training. That figure looks strong against the figure of 1.5 per cent. quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, for France.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about exchanges between this country and Eastern Europe and the USSR. I am pleased to be able to report that the United Kingdom has been able to contribute effectively to the first year of the European Community TEMPUS programme which permits student exchanges between European Community countries and countries of Eastern and Central Europe.
I am also pleased to report that there exist already a number of ways in which young people in the United Kingdom and Russia participate in exchanges. The British Council's youth exchange centre has organised exchanges of young people aged 15 to 25 in schools, training, employment and higher education. This year 650 young Soviets and 597 young Britons were involved in extracurricular exchanges in areas such as drama, the environment and music. The central bureau arranges language and cultural exchanges of 14 to 18 year-old schoolchildren; 62 schools are involved. The central bureau is currently examining the possibility of setting up exchanges between Soviet and British colleges of further education. Noble Lords will see that not only do we take part in the European Community programmes; we have also made bilateral arrangements with Russia which I am sure my noble friend will agree is good.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, drew attention to the importance of scientific education and the

463
strengthening of the basic competence of schoolchildren in technical subjects and motivating them to continue learning. That is one of the objects of our reforms of the national curriculum and of the technical and vocational education initiative.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me about BTECs. I agree with her that BTECs can be an attractive alternative to A-levels. Indeed, 8 per cent. of university entrants already come via the BTEC route. BTEC is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education and Science. There has been a proposal to him from BTEC which could make these qualifications more widely available. However, I cannot anticipate the outcome.
The noble Baroness also asked for a response on the committee's recommendation that more be done to improve access to training by offering more open learning opportunities. The Government are spending £6.7 million on supporting developments in open and flexible learning. They have committed £18 million over five years to the Open College. As I said earlier, in this field we lead the world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, raised trade union involvement in decisions on training. The Government believe that employers as both providers and consumers of training have the primary responsibility for ensuring that the workforce has the skills it needs. We also recognise that workers and their representatives have a key role to play. Without their individual and collective commitment to training, we cannot hope to succeed in competitive international markets of the 1990s. That is reflected in practical involvement in individual trade unions, in training developments at all levels: at national levels with the national training task force and the National Economic Development Council; at sectoral level with industry training organisations; and at local levels in training and enterprise councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked whether interpersonal skills would be taught as part of the national curriculum and national vocational qualifications. The Secretaries of State for Education and Employment have asked the schools examinations and assessment councils and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to consider core skills in the qualifications. Interpersonal skills are generally regarded as one of the core skills.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote drew attention to the changes in government programmes recently and asked for a period of stability. It is that, I believe, which will now be established with the TECs. We need continuity in policy and I am sure that we now have it in our broad range of educational and training programmes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me to look into the availability of access to the international baccalaureate. The best thing I can do is to undertake to investigate this; it is a rather detailed point. I shall write to the noble Baroness and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library. It is an interesting and important issue.
464
I have tried to touch on many of the questions put to me. The Government fully agree that ensuring an adequate skills supply will be one of the country's major challenges in the 1990s. We agree that our continued economic success depends upon our capacity to develop the skills and enterprise of our people to the full. We share the view that the Government have an important role in setting a framework.
In our strategic document, the Secretary of State has set out the framework and identified key objectives for the decade ahead. Those are objectives for the Government, for employers, for providers of education and training—including the TECs—and for individuals. While the Government can establish a framework within which success is encouraged, the Government alone cannot produce the success. Success of that kind depends upon a partnership involving many people.
The framework which the Government have created provides the vehicle. The objectives set out in the strategic guidance provide the signposts. It is now up to the various partners to make the journey together. We all want to reach the same destination —sustained economic success based on a highly skilled, flexible and well motivated workforce. I believe that we are well on our way.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I hope he will clarify one point. I believe he said that employers were spending 8 per cent. of their labour force bills on training. However, paragraph 19 of the report states that they are spending some 2 per cent. That seems to me a much more likely figure. We must try to get the figures right. We have had arguments about the figures in paragraph 16. The difference between 8 per cent. and 2 per cent. is enormous. Will the Minister say which figure is correct?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall certainly investigate what the noble Baroness has said to discover what the figures mean.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wish to thank the speakers who contributed to this important debate. It has been an informed debate and has added much to the value of the Select Committee's report. It has certainly underlined the urgency which the committee attaches to the subject. I shall read carefully the Minister's response to make sure that that too matches the urgency of the subject. I am not terribly convinced that that is so, but I thank the Minister for his courtesy in responding to the various points that were made. All Members of the House will look carefully at Hansard when it is published tomorrow. The debate is now the property of the House and it is up to all of us to ensure that this important subject of training is taken seriously by all Members.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crime of Vagrancy (Abolition) Bill [H.L.]
8.2 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is not a Bill which seeks to deal with the appalling problem of increasing homelessness. However, it seeks to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, except for the provisions of that Act which relate to insulting behaviour towards females. The Bill further seeks to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1935. Therefore it intends to decriminalise the state of homelessness.
The history of legislation on begging and vagrancy is a long one. Numerous Acts have been passed and have been constantly amended, but the emphasis has always been laid on the prosecution of people whose way of life is begging and vagrancy. The preamble to the 1824 Act states the mischief that the statute aims to correct. It states:
"It is expedient to make further provision for the suppression of vagrancy and for the punishment of idle and disorderly persons, rogues, vagabonds and incorrigible rogues".
The measure emphasised the wish to penalise people for begging or for vagrancy. The Law Society, the End of the Vagrancy Act Committee, the Children's Society, Crisis, CHAR, the London Homelessness Forum, the National Association of Probation Officers, the National Children's Home, Save the Children, SHAC, Shelter, the Single Homelessness Group, the Young Runaways Project, the British Youth Council and others call for the decriminalisation of vagrancy. They do so because they believe, as I do, that the 1824 Act does not work. In its present form it penalises a person for the way he or she lives rather than the effect that that person's behaviour has on others.
The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee concluded in 1980–81 that,
"The offence of begging should not be regarded as a means of dealing with the problem of homelessness".
However the committee declined to recommend the repeal of the legislation, stating:
"The police would be powerless to act in response to a complaint or to mitigate a genuine public nuisance".
However, that point was addressed in the Public Order Act 1986. That Act gives the police powers,
"to act in response to a complaint or to mitigate a genuine public nuisance".
That was the exact phrase used by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in 1980 as the reason for declining to recommend the repeal of the vagrancy legislation. Clearly the arguments used for the retention of the 1824 Act have been shown to be redundant. The same phrase that was used by the House of Commons committee was used in the 1986 Act to the opposite effect.
It is also my understanding that the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982 abolished the only provisions of the 1824 Act that still applied in Scotland. I understand that since 1982 it has not been an offence to beg in Scotland. Many states in the
466
United States of America have ruled that vagrancy laws are unconstitutional. The most recent state to do so was New York earlier this year. A number of countries have come to recognise that vagrancy legislation is being used in the wrong way.
In my opinion Sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act should now be repealed for all the reasons I have just outlined and because the prosecution of a mode of life is entirely out of context in the 1990s. We have moved on. The mischief that legislation aims to correct should not be a person's way of life but the effect that a person's behaviour has on others. I shall come back to that point time and time again.
In a letter to the End of the Vagrancy Act Committee dated 21st March 1990 the then Home Secretary advanced a number of reasons for the retention of the 1824 Act. He wrote:
"the basic purpose of the vagrancy laws is to preserve public order and decency and to protect individuals from offence or injury".
However, that aim is already adequately served under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I shall not read those sections out as they are rather long, but noble Lords can take it from me that they adequately cover the aim I have referred to.
The Home Secretary further stated in his letter:
"No one can be prosecuted for sleeping rough unless they refuse a place of shelter to which they have been directed and which is reasonably accessible".
However, in a letter to the National Association of Probation Officers dated 6th March the then Home Secretary contended that the words,
"'reasonably accessible' meant free and regularly available to vagrants".
The sad facts are that many hostels have been closed in recent years. I have a great deal of personal knowledge of the closure of Rowton houses. Noble Lords will recall that a number of those houses existed in London. There were houses at Vauxhall, Lambeth, King's Cross, Camden Town and other places. Some of them have been closed while others have been converted to upmarket hotels. Others still have been refurbished and are used as rather more specialist hostels. That has resulted in the loss of literally thousands—Bruce House and all kinds of other establishments existed in the London area—of what we used to call access beds. Those were beds to which people in such a situation could be referred. They were cheap, or even free in some cases, and available to vagrants, people on the streets and people who were desperate for somewhere to sleep. That is a great many immediate access beds to lose. There are very few, if any, left.
Madeleine Drake, in her excellent book Fifteen Years of Homelessness in the United Kingdom, sums it up thus:
"Closing the large old hostels and replacing them by smaller modern ones is in many ways a desirable policy, but several difficulties have emerged from it. The first is that at a time when the numbers of single homeless people are increasing, beds are being lost and the numbers not made up. Single homeless people are having to sleep rough, 'crash', or live in hotels which provide worse conditions than prevailed in the large hostels which have been closed. The second difficulty emerging from the closure policy is that the newer

467
hostels are less openly accessible to homeless people off the street than were the older hostels. Entry to the newer hostels is normally by referral whereas homeless people could present themselves at the door of the older hostels. The third difficulty is that much of the new provision is targeted at specific need groups".
That sums up the situation in inner London. The homeless people are there but the beds have disappeared, by and large, and there is nowhere for them to go. There are very few alternatives for people in that position. Therefore, they are forced to sleep rough.
However, that is not the whole story. In addition, there is the evidence of the impact of social security benefit changes, the introduction of the 20 per cent. minimum community charge and the grave shortage of permanent, accessible, affordable housing. Even if housing were to be available, from looking at my local paper in London it is clear that even people in work cannot afford the rents. People on minimum benefits, and certainly those receiving no benefit, could never afford the accommodation.
Therefore, we can see the dilemma that faces a great many people who took the Government's advice and got on their bikes and came to London in desperation to seek some dignity, to escape from unemployment and the dole queues. There is a real problem which I do not believe has been understood. The social security changes, in my view, are a major factor responsible for the enormous increase in the numbers of people, old and young, male and female, living on the streets.
That answers one of the points in the Home Secretary's letter. He made another point. He said:
"I understand that, in general, the police arrest only where there is some element of threatening or intimidating behaviour".
However, nowhere in Sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act—and I have looked at it umpteen times—are the words "threatening" or "intimidating" used. They are not used in the Act. Instead, the offence of begging is where the person places himself or herself,
"in any public place, street, highway, court or passage, to beg".
If threatening or intimidating behaviour is used the police should prosecute. However, they should prosecute under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and not under the 1824 Act.
In 1989 throughout England and Wales 1,402 people were prosecuted for the simple offence of begging—an increase of 150 per cent. over the figure for 1988. That is the size of the problem. It can only mean that in those cases there was no element of threatening or intimidating behaviour. Had there been, the police would have been obliged to prosecute under the Public Order Act 1986.
In a letter to Llin Golding, MP, dated 22nd February 1990, Mr. John Patten, MP, writing on behalf of the Government, said:
"There is no specific power of arrest attached to the 1824 Act and sleeping rough and begging are not arrestable offences under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. But there is a general power of arrest in Section 25 of the Act if the suspect's name and address are not known or the address given is doubtful, in which case it would be
468
impossible to serve a summons; or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that arrest is necessary to prevent the suspect from causing unlawful damage to property, committing an offence against public decency or causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway".
As it is not possible to serve a summons on the homeless they are always dealt with by way of arrest, for the reason outlined in Mr. John Patten's letter. However, the Government correctly point out that offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act are not imprisonable. Offenders are generally dealt with by way of a fine, but there is an additional sentence of imprisonment in default of payment. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that homeless and penniless people therefore have two options—to go out to beg to raise money for the fine, and risk another offence, or to spend time in custody. Consequently, a situation exists in which people are likely to be imprisoned for offences which the Government felt in 1982 were not sufficiently serious to merit such punishment.
The acquisition of a criminal record in those circumstances further disadvantages a homeless person, either in the housing field or in employment. That adds a further burden to people who already have enough difficulties.
I began by saying that the Bill is not intended to deal with homelessness. Neither should the Vagrancy Act be used to try to disguise the real problems on our streets. Homelessness has to be taken out of the criminal justice system and dealt with as the most serious domestic social problem confronting all of us. I have tried to illustrate that the Vagrancy Act 1824 is outdated, redundant, and unnecessary. It is a relic of the past. It has been superseded. Alternative legislation already exists for all the offences one could name. There are 18 alternative offences: begging, theft, damage, indecency, and so on. All the matters covered by the 1824 Act are covered by other statutes. The same applies to the 1935 Act.
I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will try to answer the points that I have raised and resist the temptation simply to repeat the clearly flawed replies that the Government have made so far. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Stallard.)
Lord Boardman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, I am afraid that I have anticipated my noble friend. I have called the Motion. Perhaps my noble friend can intervene at a later stage.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, perhaps I may first congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for bringing forward the Bill and for the comprehensive and clear way in which he explained its purpose. I suggest that this is a Bill which deserves all-party support and indeed support throughout the House. In particular, I suggest that there can be no justification for treating homelessness as a criminal offence.

469
My own interest in the topic is as the current chairman of the trustees of Crisis. It is a charity which is well known for providing the Open Christmas for those who are homeless. It is perhaps less well known that Crisis also seeks to contribute to the funding each year of approximately 275 projects throughout the country which seek to provide shelter for the homeless, so it has direct and widespread experience of the problem.
My predecessor as chairman of the trustees was the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest. He is unable to be here tonight but he has asked me to say that he fully supports the Bill. I also welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, whose involvement in Crisis together with that of her late husband goes back to its foundation, will speak later in this debate. Before I go further I apologise that because of a long-standing engagement I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate.
Tonight is perhaps not the occasion to debate why there is the problem of homelessness or its causes. Suffice to say, everyone agrees that it is a problem which has grown and is growing. That must be the awareness of all who go about the streets of London, whether they walk in the City or, if they are lawyers, near Temple Station, or from this House along Victoria Street to Victoria Station.
There is clearly no one cause of homelessness. In some cases family breakdown may be a direct catalyst which causes someone to go out on to the streets. Equally, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, over recent years there has been greater difficulty in securing social security benefits. There has been the increased release of psychiatric patients into the community and there is a greater shortage of rented accommodation. All those reasons may contribute. But for whatever reason undoubtedly many of those who are on the streets are mentally ill and many of them are young people. Surely it is inappropriate that they, or anybody else, should be branded as criminals for doing so. The purpose of the criminal law is to punish wrongdoing, not to penalise misfortune.
Even when the legislation was first passed, at a time of unrest and social mobility after the Napoleonic wars, there were those who were far-sighted enough to question the principle on which homelessness was made an offence. That view gained force, to the extent that the Vagrancy Act was repealed in Scotland. Indeed, as I understand it, in 1981 the Home Office stated that it had no objection to following Scotland and at some future date decriminalising sleeping rough and begging. That future date has surely now arrived.
As the noble Lord stressed, no one seeks to expose society to threatening behaviour, intimidation, public nuisance, demanding money with menaces, obtaining money by deception or any other offence against public order. All those offences are amply covered by other legislation. The purpose of this Bill is simply and solely to ensure that homelessness and begging for subsistence do not fall within the ambit of the criminal law.
470
The purpose of the criminal law, ranging from the law of murder to regulations governing traffic offences, is to protect the public against antisocial behaviour which harms other members of society. It is not designed to add a new pressure to social misfortune or social ills. As I would expect, the Government have recognised that the steady increase in the numbers of homeless people is a social problem. Earlier this year the then housing Minister, Mr. Michael Spicer, promised £15 million toward providing shelter and an advisory reference service for those who are homeless. More recently the new housing Minister, Sir George Young, expressed his considerable concern at the extent of the problem of homelessness. So on all sides this is recognised to be a social misfortune.
If, by contrast to that approach taken by the Department of the Environment, the Home Office seeks to suggest that for some reason homelessness should remain a criminal offence, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will clearly spell out the jurisprudential foundation in criminal law for that view. So far as I know there is none.
Perhaps I may now turn to the suggestion sometimes made in the past on behalf of the Government that no person can be convicted unless he has refused a place of shelter. The original Vagrancy Act existed unamended for 110 years. In 1935 by the Vagrancy Act of that year Parliament provided that no one could be convicted unless he or she had been directed to a reasonably accessible place of shelter and failed to apply for or refused accommodation there.
But that provision, sometimes relied on in response by the Government in the past, is not effective to help those who are homeless. Nor is it a protection for them. Of itself it raises new problems. Who is to be the judge as to whether the place of shelter is reasonably accessible? Is the shelter to be deemed to be accessible if the person has no funds to pay to get there by bus or Underground? Nor is there any indication in the legislation as to what should be the standard of the place of shelter. Is a person to be required to go there even though he or she may be subject to violence, intimidation or wretched standards of hygiene and discomfort? The section is simply unsatisfactory.
In any event let us turn to the reality of the extent to which the section achieves, or rather fails to achieve protection for those who are charged before the courts. Those who come before the courts on a vagrancy charge come before busy magistrates' courts. Those people are cold, limp, hungry and almost certainly will not ask for nor receive legal aid. Almost invariably they plead guilty. I very much doubt whether in any of those cases there is a real exploration by the courts or police as to whether they were directed to and refused to go to a reasonably accessible place of shelter. I also very much doubt if in such cases the police always carry out investigations as to whether a place is available in the place of shelter at the time or whether the person has the means to get there or knows how to get there.
In practice those who come before the courts are summarily convicted. They are fined money which

471
they do not have and then, as the noble Lord said, may have to serve a 24-hour sentence in lieu of payment of the fine. They are then released on to the streets. How does that help society at all? How does it help them at all? That progression indicates not only the inadequacy of the legal requirement which the Government previously relied on in justification of the Bill but also the utter pointlessness of convicting such a person. It is simply piling indignity on misery.
I also believe that there is another cause of concern in regard to this legislation. All those who have passed homeless people in doorways would have to be rather insensitive not to realise just how exposed those people are. They sleep open to the skies and the elements in a blanket or at best in cardboard boxes. Unlike the rest of us, they have nowhere in which they can be private. They have no door which they can shut as their security against the outside world. They are thus quite intensely vulnerable. It is bound to add to that vulnerability if a policeman approaches them and instructs them to move on, using the possibility of a prosecution to back up that request.
I very much hope that my noble friend will not suggest that the need for the police to be able to move someone on is a justification for retaining this outdated law. The police have ample powers if that person is creating a public nuisance. If that person is not a public nuisance, this legislation should not exist to enable them to move someone on and cause them great concern. I have heard that in fact the process of moving on people by mentioning the existence of the criminal law happens. Again it can obviously add to the anxiety, loneliness and pressure upon those who are among society's most unfortunate.
Perhaps I may draw to a conclusion. Homelessness is a social problem and not a crime. It is sad that some people are homeless of their own choice. I suppose that may be so. But I also suspect that very few people live flat way by choice for long. The majority are trapped. They are trapped because without a home they cannot get work and without work they cannot get a home; or they are trapped because they are mentally unstable and in any event would find it difficult to get employment. It seems to me that it would be intolerable if 170 years after the vagrancy legislation, which even in those harsher days was controversial, our Government with their humanity and care sought to maintain on the statute book either homelessness or begging for subsistence as criminal offences.
In my experience those who beg in this condition are often embarrassed at doing so and they are almost invariably in genuine need. Their condition may be uncomfortable to the remainder of us. We may pass by or the other side or we may stop to give. But either way we are embarrassed to see people in this condition. However, it is not the purpose of the criminal law to spare the embarrassment of society at the plight of its most disadvantaged. On the contrary, it is surely the litmus test of a civilised society that it bend s over backwards to protect such people rather than imposing on them the stigma of criminality. I
472
should be rather disappointed if the Government were not to respond positively to the Bill. It has my wholehearted support.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he can assist me on a point which has caused me some anxiety with regard to begging. Would the effect of the Bill be that any person or group of people could beg in any public place provided that they did so peacefully and honestly without causing an obstruction? I do not refer to begging to relieve their homeless plight but to obtain relief for themselves or for any cause. If so, that would cause concern. Can my noble friend help me on that?
Lord Alexander of Weedon; My Lords, as I understand it, primarily the begging on the streets exists for people who claim that it exists for subsistence. I am sure that my noble friend, with his humanity, would regard that as an understandable last resort to seek help. I have no doubt that theoretically, if begging were removed from the criminal law, it might be possible for people without committing a public nuisance to seek to raise money for other causes, whether charitable or personal, without licence. Having said that, they would commit an offence if they used any form of deception in seeking to obtain that money. Thus it is left to the judgment of the person who gives as to whether it is a good cause. I respectfully suggest that, provided that is so and provided that there is no intimidation or public nuisance, there is no reason to criminalise such conduct.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, it is late and for that reason I shall be brief. However, I should like the Cross-Benches to be represented, so far as I can represent them in my humble capacity, as supporting the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I congratulate him on bringing in the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, on supporting him from the Government Back Benches. There is therefore support for the noble Lord from all sides of the House. The two preceding speeches have been so persuasive and comprehensive that I shall be extremely brief.
My reasons for supporting the Bill are as follows. The mischief which gave rise to the Vagrancy Act 1824 no longer exists. It was clearly a combination of factors: fear of menacing beggars and fear of the economic instability which they might cause flooding in from Ireland or from the disbanded soldiery after the Napoleonic wars. It was possible that they could be a public nuisance. The familiar words which describe the condition that gave rise to that Act are,
"Hark, hark, the dogs do bark The beggars are coming to town".
They do not come in bands any more. They do not menace the public in such a way as to give rise to that doggerel utterance. They come in trickles, one by one. They are wretched people who for one reason or another cannot go home or who have left home and can find no social security. They have nowhere to go or for some reason or another—one cannot understand why; it is puzzling—they sometimes do

473
not wish to go to refuges that are made available to them. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, mentioned that very likely they may be mentally disturbed. It is a difficult, profound problem which is better left to those who have experience in psychology than to lay Lords such as myself.
However, nobody fears those beggars or homeless people in cardboard boxes. The predominant emotions that we feel on seeing them are of compassion and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, of embarrassment. I believe that we feel a collective shame that those people are exposing our inadequacy to cope with them when we find them on the streets. The mischief has gone and we should not pretend otherwise.
A very good schedule of alternatives has been prepared by those who have sponsored the Bill. For the life of me I cannot understand the necessity to keep the two sections of the 1824 Act because it has been shown convincingly that the Act is superseded except in the small respect which is expressly saved in the Bill. I propose that when such part, suitably amended to apply to both sexes, is incorporated into more modern legislation the remainder of the Act can then be repealed as spent. I draw attention to the fact that a Criminal Justice Bill is before Parliament this Session. I can see no better way than to incorporate that saving in the Criminal Justice Bill and in the schedule. The remainder of the 1824 Act can then be repealed as spent. The provision would clearly have much better advantage in a Government Bill than in the tender vessel which is being put out to sea—a Private Member's Bill started in the House of Lords. If by any chance the Government oppose the Bill or ask the House to vote against it and are successful, we should take the opportunity to push hard with regard to incorporating that part in the Criminal Justice Bill.
Both previous speakers asked: if Scotland can do without the residual provisions, why cannot the remainder of Great Britain? The Government may find that very hard to explain. An excuse for retaining this out-of-date Act would need to be very convincing.
Like previous speakers, I have read all the utterances on which I could lay my hands by government spokesmen in the past year or so. I refer to Mr. Waddington (as he then was), Mr. John Patten and the noble Earl. I can find no compelling justification in those utterances for the retention of the Act beyond the saving in the Bill. As with other speakers, I believe that we should not make vagrancy as a way of life punishable by fine, or on non-payment of fine by imprisonment. I would find that intolerable. I very much dislike the thought that the police may be moving those people on by the threat of the Act.
I wholeheartedly support the purposes of the Bill. Any defects can be put right in Committee. I see no reason why it should not have a Second Reading. I favour the repeal of the Act and the retention of the part in respect of indecent exposure in the Criminal Justice Bill because it is more likely to succeed in that
474
form than in the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I very strongly support his Motion for a Second Reading.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I too should like to support this Bill because the law is clearly outdated. It is 170 years old. But I rise to oppose the exclusion of Section 2 about exposure. For a lady to see what is now known as a flasher is offensive, upsetting and affronting and no one would suggest otherwise. But there is little damage done. In an age when a lady can go to a cricket match and be liable to see a streaker, to equate flashing with any other crime such as burglary, where one's house is probably ransacked and defiled, is now over the top. Times have changed since 1824. Magistrates are continually asked to keep people out of prison; so it comes as a surprise that this offence must carry a prison sentence with it.
Most of the people who flash suffer more from weakness of character than from criminal tendencies. There was a man in my town who made a little hole in the door of his father's garage. He sat behind it and when women passed by he opened the trap door and hammered on the garage door. Needless to say, he ended up in prison and that did him no good at all. I took pity on him and employed him for a time when he came out. He was quite harmless. But it was not long before he was in gaol again, and he probably picked up a few tips while he was there. It did him no good at all.
These people are sick, weak and unable to control themselves, and it is quite pointless trying to crowd the prisons with them. What they need is treatment. If there is a real problem, as opposed to the occasional case, under the existing Act, there should be psychiatric units set up to which these people should be sent. That would probably cost no more than sending such people to prison, but there would be a better chance of curing them and would avoid their having to attend the universities of crime and returning again and again. Therefore, there is every reason for modernising Section 2 as well as the whole Act.
8.42 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has brought to our attention one small but very important part of the whole problem of homelessness. I welcome the discussion on this problem which we shall have on 19th December, when I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will introduce the big debate on this very important matter and when we shall be able to discuss much wider issues than these tonight. I must apologise to the noble Lord and to my noble friend, because I do not think I shall be able to stay until the end. I am so sorry about that, but we are running late.
We are discussing tonight Sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act. It is suggested that Section 2 should be retained. It will be interesting to know what my noble friend the Minister says in reply to the ideas of my noble friend Lord Gisborough. As we all know, sleeping rough and begging all too frequently go

475
together, the one leading to the other. The Vagrancy Act makes sleeping rough and begging criminal offences. I do not think that the repeal of this Act alone is the best way to help these people.
The problem, already acute, is increasing rapidly. In 1988, 573 people were prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act in England and Wales; but in 1989 the figure was 1,396 in the four central London magistrates' courts. Unfortunately—this has been referred to, but as a magistrate I feel that I ought to bring it forward again—it seems that where the defendant is found guilty, the punishment is a fine. As these people have been begging for money in the first place, that procedure does not seem to me to be reasonable. If I was on my magisterial bench I would put the defendant on probation, so that that excellent service could give him some guidance.
It seems that prosecution for the offence of homelessness or sleeping rough is not being implemented, presumably on the grounds that with the changing social pattern some people prefer to sleep out. But the majority, we have to admit, have nowhere else to go and are sleeping rough for that reason. We are therefore discussing whether or not begging should still be an offence.
I agree with the 1980–81 Home Affairs Committee in another place, which concluded that the offence of begging should not be regarded as a means of dealing with the problem of homelessness, but which declined to recommend its repeal because the police would then be powerless to act in response to a complaint or to mitigate a genuine public nuisance.
More recently on 21st March 1990, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Waddington, as Home Secretary, wrote to the Law Society saying:
"The basic purpose of the vagrancy laws is to preserve public order and decency and to protect individuals from offence or injury."
There seem to me to be three categories of beggars. The one causing most concern to the majority of people are the under 16-year olds who come to London having left their homes for a variety of reasons, all well known to us. They arrive here with no roof and usually no money. Under the 1980 Children Act, local authorities have to safeguard the welfare of the children. In other words, they are under an obligation to see that the child has a roof and adequate food and clothing. But unless the police have some authority, these young people will continue to eke out an existence by begging. This is no way for our children to live in what is increasingly a vulnerable society. I am delighted to see today that the Salvation Army are considering looking at the plight of the young homeless. The well-known organising abilities of this excellent band of people ought to be encouraged to give us all their advice.
The second category of beggars are the people who have been begging for most of their lives. I used to find that they managed to get picked up in time to spend Christmas inside. The third category of beggars are a well organised band of people who "do" the stations and streets on a rota basis. They are capable of work, probably draw unemployment pay and keep two lots
476
of clothes in a dark alley, one for begging and the other as smart as anyone in your Lordships' Chamber tonight. I am told that they are careful not to use threatening or intimidating behaviour and they sail very close to the wind. If this part of the Act is repealed the vagrants will swarm into London with nothing, and with no one to stop them. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government are to give urgent thought to these widespread problems.
We need a deterrent. The police must be on hand to see that our city is not made a vagrants' paradise. Meanwhile, I look forward to the debate on 19th December which is to be initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
8.49 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I should like to express at the outset what my goal is in this whole field of vagrancy, and why I am speaking in support of this Bill. Put simply, I do not believe that sleeping rough or begging should be a criminal offence. We have already heard, particularly from my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, how the people who are sleeping out or begging or both are a very vulnerable sector of society; otherwise they would not be there. There are many well-known characters along the Strand who have been sleeping out, through their own choice, for 20 years. I am sure that there is nothing that the law can do about that situation.
I should like to mention a few points in relation to Sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. First, the wrong atmosphere is created if these two states are criminalised (using that rather unpleasant word). Today The Times has referred to the vulnerability of those people. If they run the risk of committing a criminal offence, that only adds to their feeling of vulnerability and increases the unlikelihood of their being able to get out of the rut in which they are.
Section 4 refers to sleeping rough; but there is no reference in the Act to the requirement of being moved on before a legal offence is committed. According to Section 4 that, coming in from other Acts, is a different matter, just as sleeping out is in itself an offence—and I do not believe that it should be.
Secondly, reference has been made to the problem of convicting a person under the two heads by a fine which they cannot pay. They will either revert to begging or they will go to prison; or, even worse, they will take up stealing in order to provide the money for the fine. That would be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Thirdly, if a person is convicted, they get a criminal record and that in turn makes it more difficult for them to gain employment, which is the long-term aim of rehabilitation.
It is often said that sleeping rough is a way of life rather than an act which should be penalised. I therefore question whether sleeping rough should be penalised as a way of life.
I do not believe that these laws achieve the intended aims. My noble friend the Leader of the House, in his previous incarnation in another place, expressed a goal with which we all agree 100 per cent: "The basic

477
purpose of the vagrancy laws is to preserve public order and decency and to protect individuals from offence or injury."
The Acts do not do that. I discussed this matter with a lady today and she stated that in the evening she cannot walk from her office to the Tube station because it means going past a large crowd of homeless people. They gather because the Salvation Army will later come along with a truck containing food. When they are together, although they are doing nothing threatening or intimidating, by their presence they make her feel so uncomfortable that she will not walk that way. Therefore, it seems to me that these Acts are not achieving the laudable purpose that was expressed. Either they are not working or they are unnecessary or both; and they are largely redundant.
There are various reasons why these offences can now be repealed. Most of the offences in the Vagrancy Act have already been repealed. Nowadays we do not need to worry about peddlars and the other people referred to in the original Act. Begging under false pretences is covered by the Theft Act. Threatening behaviour or causing offence is covered by the Public Order Act.
Much reference has been made to the repeal of this offence in Scotland. Can the Minister say whether that repeal led to an increase in begging for its own sake? That is clearly an anxiety for all of us, as was so clearly expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve.
A question has been raised concerning begging on behalf of charities, or soliciting donations. That situation will continue to be covered by the local authorities' licensing provisions and it is very important that that situation should continue.
Turning to the Bill, I do not favour the sexist tone of Clause 4. It may or may not be necessary to keep that provision and I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Gisborough. Assuming that the clause is necessary, it should be revised so that it is less sexist.
Section 22, which according to my reading of the original Act is inaccurate in its quotation, is repealed. The only part of Section 22 which stands is the exclusion of Ireland and Scotland. Therefore, that can be dispensed with.
Reference has been made to the 1989 figures and the fact that 1,256 prosecutions for begging were brought in London. The total number of offences is nearly three times the number in 1988. That is something that worries me and I question whether it is a correct use of the courts' valuable time. There were only 24 prosecutions for sleeping out, 12 in London and 12 outside London. That is a very small number, but it leads to the question of whether this offence should be kept on the statute book.
I should like to see those two offences removed from the statute book. Ideally, I should like the Minister to look at the question and see what can be done in order to avoid causing additional hardship to that very vulnerable section of society.
9 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, everything that I was going to say has been said. Nevertheless, I propose to say it again because I feel so strongly about the matter.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for bringing the Bill forward. I agree with the decriminalisation of vagrancy. I do not agree that Clause 2 should be left in the Bill, and therefore I agree with my noble friends Lord Gisborough and Lord Brentford.
The situation regarding vagrancy, begging and indecent behaviour should be looked at again, perhaps by a committee. First, as regards the question of vagrancy, I have looked up the word in the dictionary. A vagrant is one who has no settled dwelling, no settled home and wanders. As many noble Lords have said, in our country today the problem is connected with our housing policy, which causes homelessness.
With regard to the young, research has been carried out—I am not prepared to give a figure because I believe that a survey has been carried out since 1983 —which shows that a high proportion of young people who are homeless have either been in penal institutions or in care and have no home. Therefore, those who say that they should go home mean that they should return to the penal institution or children's home in which they were brought up, which is a legal impossibility.
If a child under the age of 17 is sleeping rough in London, it is possible for him or her to be dealt with under the Children and Young Persons Act or the Children Act. However, if they are 17, 18 or 19 there is no way in which the local authorities can deal with them other than through the housing department, which we know is often impossible.
What is needed in this country is low cost, affordable rented social accommodation. There is no way that such accommodation can be provided on the open market because no landlord will provide low cost rented affordable accommodation when he can obtain a higher income from his property. Therefore, it is quite impossible for it to be provided on the open market.
Who should provide it? I maintain that it should be provided by the local authority. It has been said that such accommodation should be provided by the housing associations but I have been in touch with them and they tell me that they were never set up for that purpose. They were an adjunct to local authorities in order to provide specialised accommodation. I have been told that the organisation to which the Government give money to distribute to the housing associations is in financial difficulties and there is a cash flow problem at present. That brings me to the point that only the local authorities can provide that accommodation. It is then said that if the local authorities provide low cost, affordable rented accommodation, they must build and build. I maintain that it would be possible to lease those properties to people until they can find accommodation for themselves.

479
As I said, the homeless and those sleeping rough can be divided into two categories: the very young and older people. The very young resent being sent to hostels. If they go to a hostel, they can stay there for only a certain length of time. What happens to them then? They are back on the streets. Young people want a home of their own in the community, with the community helping them. Therefore, we are back to the situation where we need low cost, affordable rented social accommodation.
With regard to the older people, the other day I asked an old man why he continued to sleep rough. He said, "It is my habit". For many such men it is their habit. If they want to do that and are doing nothing wrong, why should that not be permitted? It is true that some older men do not wish to sleep rough. One Christmas an old man came to me and said that he had come to wish me a happy Christmas. I told him that that was very kind of him but that he was two days early. Fie said, "I know, but I have business to do today". When I opened the evening paper he had "clocked" a policeman and because he had done that rather badly—he was taken to prison and kept there throughout the Christmas period. Of course that is exactly what he wanted. The problem is that he said to the prison governor, "They have not got my usual cell ready for me".
As a result, we set up hostels which many of the older men prefer. However, there are those men who like to walk the country and do not want anywhere to go. They perhaps need a night shelter from time to time. I suggest that our country made a great mistake when we closed Part 3 accommodation which enabled men to walk from the North to the South of England, 25 miles per day, and have somewhere to sleep at night. Therefore, as regards the homeless, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I believe that he is right to abolish the offence because our social policies lead homeless people to do what they are doing.
As regards begging, surely it is wrong to link begging with homelessness. I know many people who beg who are not homeless. I know many people who are able to obtain money from their parents but they do not wish to do that and so they beg. However, it surely cannot be right to link begging with homelessness. It should be dealt with in a different way under different legislation.
With regard to indecency, I submit that many homeless people would never dream of committing an indecent act. Many people from good homes do commit indecent acts. Therefore, again I believe that it is wrong to link indecency with homelessness. It is a separate problem which should be dealt with separately.
I support this Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I do not believe that Clause 2 should remain on the statute book. The last point is most important. I should like to ask why at this stage we are bound to an Act which dates back to 1824. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, to whom I am deeply grateful, has given me a quotation which I should like to read:
"New occasions teach new duties
480
Times make ancient good, uncouth".
9.8 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am glad of that point; it leads into much of what I hope to say. I apologise to the House for intervening in the gap. I do so because I promised long ago to speak on this Bill if at all possible. I did not put my name down because I was not certain that I could be in the Chamber during the course of the debate.
This problem is even older than 1824. If one were to accept the view of some poets that vagrancy might be regarded as a profession it would be capable of competing for the title of the oldest profession. To my certain knowledge the use of the law to deter people from vagrancy and begging goes back at least four centuries, and I believe a great deal further.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that the laws certainly do not achieve their desired effect. That has been true at least since the reign of Elizabeth I and, I believe, a great deal longer. Over the centuries a vast administrative burden has been placed on many public officers, but it has achieved very little. The basic idea behind the laws was that by punishment one could deter people from vagrancy and begging; but one cannot deter people from their social condition. That was always the basic misapprehension behind the law.
There has been a cyclical pattern in the enforcement of vagrancy laws over the centuries. The rise in prosecutions that we have seen between 1988 and 1989 is the umpteenth of many. Historians as a profession do not agree about much, but looking at previous occasions in other centuries they seem to be agreed that those peaks in vagrancy prosecutions do not mark peaks in original sin, which is not that much of a variable. They mark periods of exceptionally poor social conditions. The variable relates to the degree of poverty and unemployment and the adequacy of relief.
In the Act of 1601 there was understood to be something of a bargain. On the one hand, there was provision of assured support from public funds and, on the other, an attempt to deter begging. One could see the sense in that bargain. However, every time it has broken down it seems to have been the availability of support from public funds which fell down and not an increased propensity to beg. Everything that has been said tonight, including what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, regarding 16 and 17 year-olds appears to fit into that well-established context.
I listened with a great deal of care to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, who argued a contrary case which deserves attention. It is my belief that it is correct, as the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Alexander of Weedon, argued, that the offences to which the noble Baroness referred can be dealt with by means other than through the law. Her third category of beggars—almost the same as the ones in velvet gown to whom the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, referred—are undoubtedly guilty of fraud. They are undoubtedly guilty of

481
obtaining money by false pretences. I believe there are sufficient resources under the law to prosecute them. We do not need this Act.
Every time vagrancy prosecution has been used it has been based on mistaking the symptom for the cause—a mistaken desire to sweep the problem under the carpet. As the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said, it makes people feel uncomfortable to see it. In fact, prosecution has always been an attempt to shut the safety valve. That is not a very wise thing to do.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the arguments for the Bill have been put eloquently and powerfully and I shall try not to repeat them. The 1824 Act is a near redundant product of another age. It is written in archaic language which might be thought interesting or amusing in a historical document but which is not helpful or appropriate for a piece of operative legislation as the 21st century approaches.
It is worth reviewing the recent attempts to reconsider this legislation. For example, in 1968 the Law Society put forward proposals for modernisation of the Act. In 1974 the Home Office working party was set up with terms of reference which, unfortunately, did not extend to consideration of the social problems of vagrancy but which recommended modernisation and reform. The Labour Government of the time apparently found no opportunity for legislation.
Paragraph 25 of the 1981 report of the Home Affairs Committee of another place stated that in deciding that the time was not then ripe for repeal it hoped that the offence would be regarded as no more than a temporary means of dealing with an immediate social problem, and that within the then foreseeable future the wider availability of suitable accommodation for the homeless would render the offences unnecessary. That was 1981 and how misplaced that hope was! The reason why these Benches are not more populated this evening is that my noble friends are carol singing with characteristic harmony on Waterloo Station in aid of Crisis at Christmas.
Had we had this debate 10 years ago one of the arguments for reform would have been that the 1824 Act was little used and obsolescent. Now the argument is that, whereas the Act should have become obsolete as the Home Affairs Committee hoped, it is now over-used. In debating reform of the 1824 Act we should be asking ourselves what good it does. The answer is that it does precious little either for society or for the individual offender, who is neither deterred nor practically helped. The vast majority of people who sleep rough do not choose to do so: the vast majority of those who beg do so only because they have to.
If next one asks what harm the 1824 Act does, the answer is that it is probably counterproductive so far as the offender is concerned, and that point has been well made by several noble Lords. It is potentially open to abuse in so far as it effectively gives the power of arrest for essentially non-criminal activities, or indeed for non-criminal inactivities. If one asks what
482
effect the Bill will have, the answers seem to be as follows. There would not be a sudden attraction either in sleeping rough or in begging to live. I was not impressed by the floodgates argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. From what I have heard, it does not seem that there is evidence of the floodgates having been opened in Scotland.
To deal with the truly criminal and offensive misbehaviour of certain people there is an existing and adequate range of other criminal and public order legislation. I shall not now list the relevant Acts of Parliament but they would serve well enough. That point has also been made repeatedly. There is the problem of unduly aggressive begging. As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, that can be dealt with under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. There is also the problem of the bogus charitable collection. That can be dealt with under the Theft Act and other existing legislation which deals with street collections.
The mechanism to deal with the problem of indecent exposure is preserved by Clause 2 of the Bill. I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, in an analysis of the difference between flashers and streakers, and neither will I go into the question of whether there is a need to cover the female flasher, so to speak. It is not a problem that I have come across. It may be that he has a point in suggesting that a legislative opportunity should be taken to consider whether punishment by imprisonment in relation to indecent exposure should have the legislative prominence that it presently does.
As several noble Lords have said, as far as we can understand it there no longer appears to be the offence of begging in Scotland. That has been the position since the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 which I spent some time looking at this afternoon. It introduced a modern code to deal with,
"Offences of annoying, offensive, obstructive and dangerous behaviour".
That seems to set a good example for England and Wales where piecemeal reforms are no longer good enough. This is a whole area of the law which could do with rationalisation and modernisation.
Meanwhile, south of the Border and in London in particular there has been a startling increase in the number of prosecutions which cannot be explained except as a symptom of the Government's policy of releasing psychiatric patients into the community and their housing and social security policies. The 1824 Act comes from an age which had no social policy much beyond its penal code. Today's social problems of homelessness and deprivation should no longer be addressed by the criminal law but by political will and well-directed resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, was right when she said that the repeal of the Act of 1824 will not be enough. If the Government are sincere in their wish to help the homeless, support of this Bill will be a good indication of such sincerity.
9.20 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stallard for introducing this very important measure and for doing so with such

483
clarity. It has the support of the Labour Party, which believes that the Vagrancy Acts are outdated and unhelpful and should therefore no longer remain on the statute book. My noble friend has had strong support from all sides of the House, led by a powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, which we shall not forget.
The whole question of homelessness is not central to our debate this evening but it has been referred to in many speeches. Noble Lords have referred to the problems which homeless people experience with their benefits and through having no fixed abode. Noble Lords have also referred to the importance of de-criminalising homelessness and begging. There was almost total agreement on that point. Many speakers pointed out that there is already legislation on the statute book to deal with public order offences. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked, how can we keep on the statute book a measure enacted as far back as 1824 considering all the changes that have taken place since that time? The Minister will have to find some powerful arguments to counter the points made in the debate.
The Bill seeks to repeal the Vagrancy Acts but to retain the provision relating to indecent exposure. That point was cleverly discussed by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Gisborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, to include in the Criminal Justice Bill a non-sexist provision relating to indecent exposure seems a very sensible proposition.
Until recently the Vagrancy Act 1824 appeared to have withered away through lack of use. However, my noble friend and the other sponsors of the Bill have been convinced of the urgent need to repeal the legislation by the fact that lately it has been revived to deal 'Kith the growing number of young people sleeping rough on our streets. It is feared by many that the increased use of the legislation is an attempt to tidy up certain areas of London. Many noble Lords have referred to the increase in prosecutions under the Act. It is a sobering thought that between 1988 and 1989 the number of prosecutions increased by 150 per cent.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the vast majority of the prosecutions were not for sleeping rough but for begging?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am fully aware of that fact. I intended to give the figures but they have already been given by previous speakers.
Apart from the total lack of humanity in penalising young people for something which is not their fault, what possible point can there be in criminalising them? There can be no justification for making begging or homelessness a crime. The rise in homelessness is due to a number of social and economic factors which surely must be dealt with through social and economic solutions. Criminalising the homeless can only worsen the problem, as the acquisition of a criminal record makes it even harder for those people to find employment or accommodation. It must be true to say that young people sleep
484
rough because they have no home and not because they wish to do so, and that they beg only because they have nothing upon which to live.
I support my noble friend's Bill. I do so for the reasons I have given and also because I believe, first, that such Acts are outdated. That fact has been recognised in Scotland where, as I understand it—perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm this—in 1982 the legislation was changed in order to decriminalise begging. Secondly, the role of the criminal law should not be to punish those who have already been marginalised because of their problems, especially the most vulnerable groups; namely, young people and the mentally ill who have been reduced to spending their lives on the streets.
My third reason for supporting the Bill is the backing which it has received from so many organisations, as mentioned by my noble friend. It is also supported by the NCCL and other human rights organisations and by the probation service. I have with me a letter from a probation officer who works in inner London. He says that he is becoming increasingly concerned about the criminalisation of homeless people under the Vagrancy Act, especially the 17 year-olds who are trapped in a no-win situation.
I should like to conclude by giving your Lordships one example of the work carried out by an organisation that is very close to young homeless people. It is a West End day centre called the London Connection, which is situated behind St. Martin-in-the-Fields. The organisation works with the most vulnerable young people who come to London from many different parts of the country. I believe that 12 per cent. of them come from Ireland. They are aged between 16 and 20.
The organisation stresses the fact that when such people arrive in London they are almost always filled with hope and determination to find a job and somewhere to live. If they cannot find somewhere to live, that determination is dampened almost immediately. They then give up and take to the kind of life about which we have heard today. Very often they find a day centre to attend during the day. The staff at the centre try to find them accommodation or, alternatively, try to persuade those who have left home to return home. If both efforts fail, the young people sleep rough at night and spend the morning in a day centre recuperating, after which they go out in the evening either to beg or to busk. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, gave us a graphic description of these young people when they are taken to the police station. He described how they felt cold and damp and already hopeless. That was a very strong point.
Many such cases have been described to me by the director of the London Connection. He has told me how these young people are charged under the Vagrancy Act and then either let off or fined between £20 and £50 at the magistrates' court; or, as an alternative, they have the choice of spending a day in custody. A point has been made about the cost of such procedures to the system. Not only are such procedures followed but there is sometimes a procedure whereby a social inquiry report is required.

485
Of course, such a report must be compiled while the young person is remanded on bail. Therefore, there is not only the disastrous effect on young people and the injustice to be considered; there is also the added cost to the system of charging such young people for begging under the Vagrancy Act.
The noble Lord also mentioned the coverage in the tabloid newspapers. He said that that did not help the situation. There have been headlines in such newspapers stating that young people collect vast amounts of money through begging and pointing out how worthless is such an existence. That is not just misleading, it gives a bad impression of those young people who make only meagre pickings from begging.
I hope that the Minister will at least agree with the Bill's aim. He may find something wrong with the Bill, but he will have listened to some powerful and convincing speeches in which all have agreed that we should decriminalise begging and sleeping rough, and that those are social problems which cannot be solved through the penal code. No one believes that to repeal the Vagrancy Act provides the ultimate solution to the homelessness crisis, but it is at least one step in the right direction.
Homelessness must be taken out of the criminal justice system. The punishment of those vulnerable people merely for being unfortunate and under-privileged should cease. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. As I said at the beginning, he will have to find some powerful arguments if he is to oppose not just the Bill but the principle that has been expressed all around the House, that we should not criminalise begging and homeless people.
9.31 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had an important and moving debate. People from all sides of your Lordships' House have been concerned about the effects of homelessness and begging, the sorrow it causes to those who are involved in it and the distress it causes those who witness it. I am glad that when he introduced the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that he was not dealing with the appalling problems of homelessness, because that is correct. My noble friend Lady Faithfull amused me, as she so often does. She said that everything she had intended to say had already been said but, like a battleship, she said that that would not stop her from saying it again; and she did. It was good to hear her speak in such forthright terms.
I am in a different position. Nothing that I intend to say has already been said, and so I shall speak from a different point of view. I thought that it might be helpful if I were to explain the Government's position on the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. However, I should like first to take the opportunity of congratulating him on his stamina and persistence, but not just in forgoing his dinner. If that were the cause of his stamina and persistence, I would join with him other noble Lords who have also forgone their dinner, and congratulate them. I might
486
with modesty also include myself in those congratulations. It was nearly 10 years ago when he first introduced a Bill in another place to abolish the vagrancy laws. He did not have too much luck then, and so he tries it again in the more salubrious surroundings of your Lordships' House. We shall see what success he has here and in another place when the Bill reaches there.
I could probably best help your Lordships if I were to provide an assessment of the legal and practical effects of the Bill if it were enacted and to clarify some of the issues that have been raised during the debate. The subject is one which touches most people's hearts and their natural concerns and sensitivities about homeless people, as has been evident from the speeches. I as well as other noble Lords have seen homeless people in cardboard boxes in the Bull Ring at Waterloo, in doorways along the Strand or in Lincoln's Inn Fields. My noble friend Lord Brentford referred to the Salvation Army truck. I have been with the Salvation Army and seen the astonishing work that it does. After witnessing all this, one would have to be steely-hearted not to feel a twinge, even a tug of conscience, to make one ask, "What have we or what has society done to bring this about?" Of course, there is a kaleidoscope of reasons, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate to bracket everyone as being poor or without jobs. I met one man whose home was in the north of England and who lived in a cardboard box in the Bull Ring. He told me that he went off at three o'clock in the morning to walk for an hour; he had a job in an abattoir where he worked, then he came back and lived in the cardboard box at night. He found that a satisfactory way to live, but it does not mean he was out of a job or necessarily penniless.
When one sees all this, one automatically—but perhaps wrongly—equates homelessness with begging, vagrancy or matters of ill-repute. However, people who are homeless are not necessarily beggars; and people who are beggars are not necessarily homeless. It is important to keep these two disagreeable aspects quite separate and distinct.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, my noble friend Lord Alexander in his powerful speech and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, as well as many others, referred to homelessness. We share the concern that many people expressed about it. But it is important not to confuse what we can and should do in order to eliminate homelessness with what is and should be on a separate occasion a legal offence. My noble friend Lord Alexander spoke of what we ought to do to help the homeless. My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve was also concerned.
There is sometimes a contradiction which was brought out in the remarks of both my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that to some people it is a way of life. If so, why should they not continue it? The next moment we say, "These people are sleeping rough, it is a disgrace, an offence; and society should not allow it". There is a distinction to be drawn and the person of

487
whom I spoke earlier was content to live that way. It may cause offence to others who witness it, but that is how some people wish to live.
We share the concern of noble Lords who have expressed anxiety about homelessness. The Government have done and are doing a great deal about it in a co-ordinated effort. We have given much in the way of resources to the problem, but it is right to get it into perspective since there has been much understandable criticism of homelessness. The sum of £300 million has been allocated to local authorities and housing associations over the next two years in order to help to house the homeless. Aid for voluntary bodies helping the homeless has been trebled in the past year alone to £2 million. There were government initiatives last June and in the Autumn Statement on 8th November concerned with the single homeless in London. For them over £50 million of additional money is allocated for this year; £38 million for next year; £43 million for 1992–93; and £6.5 million has been given in grant aid to the vital voluntary sector. That means that over the next three years over £100 million is committed to combat single homelessness in London. By any standards that is a great deal of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred to the loss of hostel beds. These should be replaced by the Government's single homeless initiative. The hostel beds will be available to all and not just to those who are referred to them. They will be available to those who turn up at the door. They will be established under a phased programme which will run from January to April next year. It is quite unacceptable that people should sleep on the streets. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that low cost rented accommodation should be available. It is the basic tenet of housing policy that everyone should have a home which they can afford. The Housing Corporation is the main provider of social rented housing and the Government give it millions of pounds every year. Local authorities should be the enabling authority but not necessarily the provider.
Housing benefit is available for those who cannot meet 100 per cent. of their rent. Under the single homeless initiative we shall be providing more rented accommodation in the next few years. Some £38 million is to be provided next year and £43 million is to be provided in 1992–93 specifically for homeless people on the streets. The money will be provided to move those people to hostels.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned benefits. People who have no fixed abode can still claim benefits. They can claim income support and unemployment benefit. People without an address can also register as unemployed. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that the social security rules caused homelessness. There are a wide range of benefits, including income support, which continue to be available to homeless people. Therefore there is no reason for anyone to be without an income. Housing benefit is available to pay for reasonable rent and accommodation charges.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked whether it
488
would not be possible to manage without a Vagrancy Act. The legislation, he said, had been repealed in Scotland. However comparisons with Scotland are not very illuminating. The criminal law in Scotland is different to that in England. The Scottish breach of the peace powers at common law enable action to be taken where such action would not be possible in England and Wales. My noble friend Lord Brentford asked what the position was now that the situation had changed in Scotland. I cannot give my noble friend an answer. I doubt whether I could provide an illuminating answer as statistics do not show the size of the problem.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to the mentally ill. They said that such people should not be discharged into the community. I agree with those remarks entirely. By 1st April next year all district health authorities will be required to initiate, in collaboration with local social services departments, explicit, individually-tailored care programmes for such people. The care programme approach is reinforced by the new specific mental illness revenue grant and by the project for increased authorisation for capital expenditure on mental illness. Those measures should help to secure improvements in community services and ensure that mentally ill people are not discharged from hospital unless there are adequate health or social services available to meet their needs.
All these are important factors which the Government are addressing. The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, does not propose any new measure to ameliorate or alleviate the basic problems of poverty and vagrancy. It concerns itself solely with the reform of a part of the criminal law; namely, the Vagrancy Act 1824. The Bill states in effect that the Act is obsolete and that it does more harm than good in today's society. The Bill further suggests that the Act should be taken off the statute book.
The only substantive offence in the Vagrancy Act which the Bill proposes to retain is that in Section 4 which enables the police to proceed against those who indecently expose their person to women, the people whom my noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to as flashers. All the other offences in the Vagrancy Act would be dispensed with under the terms of the Bill.
The title Vagrancy Act is somewhat of a misnomer since the Act is concerned with a much broader range of mischiefs than most people have in mind when they think of vagrancy. We need to be clear about the offences which would cease to exist if the Bill were to pass into law.
It is certainly true that the Act criminalises begging in all its various manifestations. It is also true that it enables action to be taken against those who persist in sleeping rough provided—and this is a very important proviso which is all too often overlooked by the Act's critics—that that person has an alternative place to go to or that he or she is causing offensive consequences.

489
The Act also provides for action to be taken against unlicensed pedlars, riotous or indecent behaviour by common prostitutes, dishonest fortune tellers and those who are found on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose, as well as the offence of indecent exposure which the noble Lord would wish to be retained.
It is all too easy, as did the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to mock the quaint way in which the 1824 Act describes those mischief-makers. Also it is not difficult to dredge up various Acts and by-laws which on the face of it might be thought to cover some of the matters with which the 1824 Act was designed to deal. That was the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
I cannot agree that the alternatives put forward by the critics of the Vagrancy Act are satisfactory. The offences proposed do not fit or have inappropriate penalties. There is no specific offence of begging outside the Vagrancy Act. Some of the offences in the Public Order Act might catch some bad cases of begging, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested. However, they are not specific and because they require proof of different and wider mischiefs they could well mean, for example, that an old lady would be forced to go to court to testify in order to get action against an aggressive beggar. There is much to be said for the Vagrancy Act, with its straightforward remedy for a straightforward mischief, rather than resorting to the artificial use of charges that were never intended for that purpose.
There is another approach, however, which questions whether it would be advisable to alter, still less to do away with, provisions which the police evidently find valuable in dealing with particular types of undesirable activity and which in the instances which I have described are scarcely ever applied to the homeless. That certainly was the view in another place when the Home Affairs Select Committee considered the vagrancy offences in its 1980–81 session. The committee decided that the Act should stay.
The number of prosecutions for those other offences is considerable. They totalled 2,053 in 1989. Taken together they outnumber the prosecutions which were instituted for begging, 1,405, and sleeping rough, a mere 24 across the whole of the country. We have heard a certain amount about police action against the homeless. The fact of the matter is that prosecutions under the Vagrancy Act for sleeping rough are extremely rare. As I said, there were only 24 prosecutions in 1989 for the whole of England and Wales. Only 12 of those were in London. So far as we know, not a single person aged under 17 was prosecuted for sleeping rough in London. Therefore, although some people may say that the police are persecuting the homeless under the Vagrancy Act and because of the Vagrancy Act, that does not stand up to the facts.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friends Lord Alexander and Lord Brentford argued that it is wrong to have on the statute book an offence which punishes those whose only crime is that they are
490
obliged to sleep on the streets—in other words, homelessness. They are perfectly right, but no such offence exists. The Vagrancy Act was amended in 1935 in order specifically to provide that no one can be prosecuted for sleeping rough unless they are spurning free and accessible accommodation or unless their sleeping rough has offensive consequences. Therefore, it is simply not true to say that the Vagrancy Act makes it a criminal offence to be homeless. It does no such thing. What it does is provide the police with what many think is a useful power and indeed a reasonable one to point the homeless toward available accommodation.
If the Vagrancy Act were to go, so would the power to help those who would not otherwise accept help. That Act enables the police to direct the homeless to shelter which they can take up. If that shelter is refused the police can take action against them. If the Act is removed the police will have no power to move the offenders to better accommodation. They will have no power at all to move them. Some would remain on the streets inadequately housed, and that would be an offence to the people involved and to others.
I now turn to the different matter of begging which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. It is important. It is true that there are more prosecutions for begging nowadays and it is also true that most of those are in London; but it is not true to infer from that that those who beg are necessarily genuinely needy or homeless. It is certainly not true that they are young. My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve was concerned about the plight of the young who beg. Only two young persons were prosecuted for begging in London last year. No young persons at all were prosecuted for begging in the rest of England and Wales. So prosecutions for begging are in practice restricted to adults.
It is clear that the police receive many complaints about beggars. If people have a genuine need to beg that is a state of affairs which all of us deeply regret, but all the social security provisions which are available nowadays are designed to make begging unnecessary. My noble friend Lord Alexander said that my humanity should be such as not to make begging a criminal offence. Whatever one's views about the sociology of begging, I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod that some beggars—not all—are no more than idle rogues who are prepared to use any racket in order to cadge money from the public.
Some of them are quite clearly on the look out for soft touches and can cause quite serious offence. For instance, one hears of begging near Notting Hill because Middle Eastern gentlemen are sometimes considered to be more generous than others who live there. Of course, if you take a dog with you, the pourboire is likely to be considerably enhanced because people feel sorry for the dog. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, shakes her head. I simply say that not all beggars are genuine. She must accept that.
I do not deny that there are some offences in the Public Order Act 1986 which might catch the activity of some beggars, but there is no specific offence of

491
begging in that Act. For a successful prosecution under the section of the 1986 Act mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, certain additional matters have to be proved, such as that the behaviour complained of causes harassment, alarm or distress. As I explained earlier, that might require the victim to go to court for the matter to be proceeded with.
It is not impertinent to pose the question: why should a person be subjected to all that when the simple mischief is that he was the object of a beggar's attention? The virtue of the Vagrancy Act is that begging which amounts to a nuisance can be dealt with before it reaches that pitch and certainly before it amounts to blackmail, demanding money with menaces or any of the other so-called alternative offences which were mentioned by noble Lords. The question to be faced is whether we want to deprive the police of the power to act in response to genuine complaints from members of the public about begging and of the ability to mitigate what is and can be a genuine nuisance.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend Lord Alexander said that we should not send beggars to prison. My noble friend Lord Brentford said that people should not be sent to prison for sleeping rough. Imprisonment for begging and for sleeping rough was abolished in 1982. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, then went on to say that it was pointless to prosecute the poor under the Vagrancy Act because the poor do not have any money to pay fines. My answer is that the courts are well able to take account of the means of people who come before them in deciding the appropriate sentence. They could quite easily, for example, give a conditional discharge. In some cases—and begging may well be one of them—the offender will have money. But prosecutions and convictions are not the object of the exercise where homelessness is involved. We are concerned that the police should be able to use an effective power which is provided by the Act to point the homeless to free, available shelter.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said that he would like to see the Criminal Justice Bill used to repeal the Vagrancy Act except for the indecent exposure offence. I wish to make two points. First, the Criminal Justice Bill deals with the administration of justice and not the creation of new criminal offences. Secondly, it makes no real sense to describe the Act's offences as spent, as I believe the noble Lord wished to do, when they are in fact still well used. It is of note that 3,482 prosecutions under the Vagrancy Act were made in 1989 and less than half of those were for indecent exposure.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, will the noble Earl say how many of those prosecutions by the police were instigated by members of the public? It is one Of the noble Earl's great arguments for the retention of those provisions. Without such prosecution by the police there would be no way for members of the public to bring prosecutions except in person. It would be very interesting if he could tell us how many originated from requests by members of the public.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not have those figures. I do not know whether the statistics would show them. My guess is that they would not.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is right to worry about vagrancy. It is a matter that concerns us all. It is one of those subjects where one's natural response is to look to social policies rather than to the criminal law for answers. I agree with him on that. That is our primary response too.
I have tried to explain what we are trying to do as a Government over homelessness. I believe that it is a substantial amount. However, there is too a role for the criminal law with regard to begging. We have seen a role also, albeit a rather limited and unusual one, as regards those who sleep rough. We have also hesitated—your Lordships might think wisely—about sweeping away all the offences in the Vagrancy Act. That is why the Government have a natural hesitation in giving a chorus of approval for the noble Lord's Bill. However, in the end it is a matter for your Lordships to decide. I shall watch its progress with interest.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have participated in what has been an exceedingly interesting debate and for the constructive and helpful remarks made by noble Lords and noble Baronesses on both sides of the Chamber.
I have listened closely to the arguments. I can see much sense in some of them, in particular with regard to Clause 2. There may well be a case for amendment of that part. I have never professed that the Bill as it stands has no defect or is unable to be amended. I shall be only too pleased to consider amendments.
I thank the noble Earl for his long and in places understanding reply. I was more grateful to him when he left his brief. He spoke then in his own compassionate way —I know him to be a compassionate man. I felt a little sorry that he had to read a brief prepared by people who are not in touch with the real world. One had only to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, to find out what happens in the real world. What happens to these people when they appear in court? Where do they go from there? How are they put into custody? Concrete examples were given. They were not dreamt up to answer a debate in a sedate Chamber, as the noble Lord said, but demonstrated a real understanding of the law.
I was a little sad to hear the noble Earl having to read that brief. Much of his brief was more relevant to next week's debate on homelessness. I certainly welcome the initiatives that he mentioned, and I dare say that they will be repeated. But they are not really an argument for retaining the Vagrancy Act, which deals with a completely different set of circumstances.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He is being very fair. The argument might have been more suitable for next week's debate. The only reason that I mentioned it tonight was because much of the debate turned around homelessness.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl accepts that these initiatives will be better discussed in

493
a broader debate on the whole question of homelessness. But in this narrower field I did not feel that the noble Earl justified the retention of the Act because he did not reply to the points that I made about the schedule of alternatives. I do not know whether he has seen it, but I shall be happy to send him a copy of that schedule. Nor did the noble Earl reply to my point about the 1986 Act, which gave the police specific powers to deal with the nuisance that he mentioned. The 1986 Act used the same words that the 1981 Act used to oppose a repeal. So that point was adequately clear, and the noble Earl did not reply to it.
There are various sections of the Theft Acts which he did not mention and which deal with demanding money and obtaining property by deception. This would encompass feigning poverty in order to obtain money. These are already offences under different Acts. The noble Earl mentioned them as if they did not exist, and implied that if we took away the Vagrancy Act, none of these offences would exist. But they exist in 18 different statutes which can be used. So there is no justification for cluttering up the courts, or for sending people to gaol when we are trying to get people out, so as to make room for the real villains. The noble Earl did not in my view justify the retention of the Act on any of those grounds at all.
He mentioned the question of equating begging with vagrancy. It has been equated ever since the first Act was introduced. They are always lumped together, and the 1824 Act is the same. It is that that we are trying to get rid of. In some parts, the noble Earl was really arguing for the repeal of this ancient law and for replacing it with something else, though he did not say with what else.
So I feel that the arguments have been posed. Constructive proposals have been made and suggested amendments are acceptable to me. In view of all that and what has been said, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Underground (Victoria) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, read a second time pro forma, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Clyde Port Authority Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, read a second time pro forma, and committed to a Select Committee.
Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Shard Bridge Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

King's Cross Railways Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
That the promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present Session; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be deposited with the bill a declaration signed by the agents for the bill, stating that the bill is the same, in every respect, as the bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all petitions relating to the bill presented in the Session 1988–89 which stand referred to the Committee on the bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the bill in the present Session;
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1988–89 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the last Session.
House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.

  CHILD BENEFIT: PAYMENTS
  CHILD BENEFIT: PAYMENTS
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, BRUSSELS, 4th DECEMBER
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, BRUSSELS, 4th DECEMBER
  THE GULF: SANCTIONS COSTS
  THE GULF: SANCTIONS COSTS
  MEDICAL IMPLANTS: RESEARCH
  MEDICAL IMPLANTS: RESEARCH
  MANSION HOUSE UNDERGROUND STATION
  MANSION HOUSE UNDERGROUND STATION
  THE GULF: TROOP COMMAND
  THE GULF: TROOP COMMAND
  PHARMACEUTICAL R & D
  PHARMACEUTICAL R & D
  PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS
  PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS
  PHARMACEUTICAL INTERNATIONAL TRADING
  PHARMACEUTICAL INTERNATIONAL TRADING
  BUILDING CLEANING WORK TENDERING, DIRECTION
  BUILDING CLEANING WORK TENDERING, DIRECTION
  SUBORDINATE PLANNING LEGISLATION: PROPOSALS
  SUBORDINATE PLANNING LEGISLATION: PROPOSALS
  DOG CONTROL MEASURES
  DOG CONTROL MEASURES
  SINGLE HOMELESS: ASSISTANCE
  SINGLE HOMELESS: ASSISTANCE
  THE GULF: POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENT DAMAGE
  THE GULF: POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENT DAMAGE