Sitting of 10 July 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  RIVER TEES BARRAGE AND CROSSING BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Assisted Places
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the assisted places scheme.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): The assisted places scheme continues to benefit children from lower-income families. At present, more than 27,000 children have assisted places and 17 more schools will join the scheme this September.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department spends £3,400 per year on each assisted place compared with less than £2,000 on the education of each secondary school pupil in St. Helens? As St. Helens is about to be poll tax-capped and will have to adjust its expenditure on education, how can the Secretary of State justify spending so much money on the education of an elite at the expense of children in St. Helens and elsewhere?
    Mr. MacGregor: The community charge capping in St. Helens is a judgment on the authority's budget by reference to criteria that apply to all authorities. What an authority decides to do as a result of charge capping is a matter for that authority in the light of its own spending priorities. Broadly speaking, the amount of money spent on assisted places nationally is roughly the same per pupil as is spent on a secondary school pupil. I am happy to elaborate on that. The assisted places scheme represents just under half of 1 per cent. of the estimated total expenditure on schools in 1989–90. It is money well spent because it is simply repaid by the excellent examination results that those pupils achieve and it considerably extends parental choice.
    Mr. Ashby: I have a school in Leicestershire that has reopened after having been closed by the local authority. It is a school of great excellence, with 471 pupils. It is opening a preparatory school with 120 pupils and the headmaster would dearly like to provide assisted places to pupils who want to share in the excellence of his school.
    160
    Will my right hon. Friend consider easing the conditions for the number of sixth form pupils so that such schools can join in the assisted places scheme at an early stage?
    Mr. MacGregor: We have a fixed sum for assisted places. I am always prepared to consider additional applications, as was demonstrated by my announcement a moment ago that 17 more schools are coming into the scheme in September. However, it is necessary to look at each school to see whether it fits the conditions before one takes a decision. I should be happy to do that.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about students' grants.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): My right hon. Friend periodically receives representations about a variety of aspects of the student grant system.
    Mr. Bennett: Given the Minister's growing reputation as a joker, can he explain to the House the irony of the student loans scheme? Had the Prime Minister's target of nought per cent. inflation been achieved, the loans scheme would never have been phased in, but with an inflation rate of 9 or 10 per cent., it will be phased in very quickly. Does the Minister accept that the entire scheme has been a giant hoax, proving to the House of Commons that any crazy scheme can get through it if has the support of the Prime Minister and the Whips?
    Mr. Jackson: I should like to find a witty response to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall simply tell him that with the addition of the loan to the grant, Britain now has the highest level of student support of the major European countries, and the proportion of students for whom student support is available is second only to that in the Netherlands, where the loan element is larger than ours. Not only have we won the votes, but we have won the argument.
    Mr. Wells: Has my hon. Friend received representations, as I have, from students in high-rent cities such as Oxford and London who are finding it extremely difficult to know how to budget for the next academic year following the announcement of his scheme?
    Mr. Jackson: We have had many discussions. I had a discussion with two Members of the House of Lords on that point only this morning. There will be a 25 per cent. increase in resources available to students this year, when the loan comes in, which, together with the access funds, will meet students' needs.

    Teachers (Overseas Advertising)
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to issue guidelines to local education authorities regarding overseas advertising for teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to issue

    161
    guidelines to local education authorities regarding overseas advertising for teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The recruitment of teachers is the responsibility of local education authorities and the governors of schools. My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue guidelines to local authorities regarding the recruitment of overseas teachers.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Minister assure the House that no one who applies from overseas for a teaching post in Britain will get it unless he or she has been vetted according to the national standards?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. No teacher can teach in our schools until he or she meets the minimum criteria for qualified teacher status—a grade C GCSE or equivalent in maths and English, some two years in full-time higher education and at least a two-year probationary period in the school.
    Dr. Reid: With respect, that is not what was asked. We are asking about the vetting procedures for those with criminal records who are teaching our children. Is the Minister aware that such vetting procedures can take up to 10 weeks and that, because of the Government-created chronic shortage of teachers, some of the applicants, even from the United Kingdom, are in post for a considerable period before the procedures are completed? Is she further aware that the situation is worse for overseas applicants? Why will not the Government issue guidelines to local education authorities informing them which overseas countries issue similar good conduct certificates or operate similar vetting procedures? Why must our children remain at risk because of the Government's lack of activity?
    Mrs. Rumbold: If there is a lack of activity, I shall certainly instruct the Department to consider it.
    Mr. Madel: Teachers from overseas and in this country often find housing costs a deterrent to teaching in certain areas. Will my hon. Friend ask English county councils to publish a list of the unoccupied property that they own and ask them what they are prepared to do about renting it to teachers?
    Mrs. Rumbold: That is a helpful suggestion. Many of the home counties and London are finding it more difficult to accommodate teachers, and teachers are finding it more difficult to find accommodation because of the high price of housing. Local authorities are closely considering the problem, but my hon. Friend's suggestion is worth investigating.

    Student Loans
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any recent representations regarding the implementation of the student loan scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jackson: Constructive discussions are taking place with the higher education institutions about their role in confirming their students' eligibility for a loan. Following Parliament's approval of the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990, the Government's objective remains to have the scheme in place for autumn 1990.
    Mrs. Ewing: Why do not the regulations allow additional time for Scottish students to repay their loan, given that many undertake a four-year degree course? Is that a misunderstanding of the Scottish system, similar to that demonstrated on the law on the repayment of loans by minors, or is it deliberate?
    Mr. Jackson: We thought long and hard about that. We provided special terms for those on five-year courses or longer. We do not believe that it is necessary to provide them for students on four-year courses. The expected repayment, which will be made only by graduates on incomes higher than £11,500 a year, will not be more than £400 a year, whether they are on a three, four or five-year course. That is a reasonable sum to expect graduates to repay.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister confirm what I understand him to have said last night—that the Scottish Law Officers were not consulted on the student loan regulations? Does not that show extraordinary incompetence, equalled only by the evident contempt for Scotland and for Scottish law? Will the Minister explain simply to the House what the last-minute, hasty additions to the regulations in relation to Scotland mean?
    Mr. Jackson: We discussed all this last night. I confirm that the Scottish Law Officers were not consulted because there was not a specific matter on which they could advise. Different legal opinions have been expressed, but the Government's firm view is that the loan is enforceable. The regulations bear on the issue of ratification at 18 and do not necessarily determine the question of enforceability. The hon. Gentleman is on to a loser on this point.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status.
    Mr. MacGregor: The governing bodies of 66 schools have published proposals for grant-maintained status so far. I have approved 44 and rejected 12 of the proposals that have reached me for decision.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that grant-maintained status is an excellent way of improving choice and diversity in education? Does he share my surprise that, despite its honeyed words about freedom and choice for parents, the Labour party is pledged to abolish grant-maintained status if it is ever elected to government?
    Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What is more, our new policy for grant-maintained status is proving popular. The number of grant-maintained schools in operation this coming September will be double that of last September. It is clear that parents are opting for grant-maintained schools as applications for places are up by 40 per cent., so it is also clear that parents, governors, head teachers and teachers like grant-maintained schools. Only the Opposition reject that extended opportunity for parental choice. I suspect that, as with so many of their other policies, they will think again in due course.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong when, in an interview in 1987,

    163
    she said. "I think that most schools will opt out"? Can he also confirm that she was wrong when she said subsequently that by schools opting out, the poll tax would be reduced?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is quite clear that from an early—[Interruption.] It is quite clear that it takes some time to go through the process of becoming a grant-maintained school because there is an extended ballot procedure. The fact that the number of grant-maintained schools has doubled within a year, that there are more and more applications and that there is wider and greater interest shows that grant-maintained status is a popular approach. I should be delighted to see more schools adopting that approach.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members widely welcome the concept of grant-maintained schools? Is he further aware that if we dropped the wholly artificial threshold of 300 pupils necessary for admission to grant-maintained status, we should achieve a far greater number of schools, especially village schools, applying for such status? I urge my right hon. Friend to take note of that suggestion.
    Mr. MacGregor: We are already seeing an increasing number of schools applying for grant-maintained status and the reason is the success of the scheme for the schools that have applied so far. I shall keep the issue of the minimum figure, to which my hon. Friend referred, under review.
    Mr. Straw: Was the Secretary of State consulted by the Prime Minister when she said, at the Conservative women's conference, that the poll tax could be reduced by schools opting out, and that there could be repeated and regular ballots for opting out?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on many occasions the grant-maintained schools and the success of the scheme.
    Mr. Straw: When?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have just told the hon. Gentleman that I have discussed it on many occasions. He never wants to listen to the answers to his questions. We have also said that we shall monitor carefully the attitude of the local education authorities, which is one of the points that my right hon. Friend made at that conference. If there were evidence of a general problem, I should consider further legislation if necessary. On the wider question, if many schools obtained grant-maintained status, it might be necessary to review the funding methodology.

    Higher Education Colleges
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he is using to designate polytechnic status for colleges of higher education; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have accepted the advice of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council on such criteria. The criteria specify minimum student numbers in an institution, both overall and within a range of academic programmes; the minimum proportion of students at degree level; and a requirement that the institution be accredited by the Council for National Academic Awards.
    164
    I have recently accepted the PCFC's advice on institutions that fulfil the criteria and Humberside college of higher education and Dorset institute are to be designated for the coming academic year.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the high quality of further education in Bolton? Does he agree that there is far too much academic snobbery in this country, and surely, if Japan has more than 340 universities, we could have a few more polys?
    Mr. MacGregor: Two more polytechnics are coming in this September. I am well aware of the excellent quality of many of our colleges of further education. I have said that I see the designation of new polytechnics as a continuing process and I shall be happy to receive the advice of the PCFC at any time that another institution has met the criteria.
    Dr. Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend explain why he prevents polytechnics calling themselves "universities" when there is already such diversity in the university system that some polytechnics are certainly equivalent to some universities?
    Mr. MacGregor: That matter has been debated in the House on many occasions. I believe that there are distinctive characteristics to universities and polytechnics. The most important task for the polytechnics is to continue to market their excellent advantages as well as they are currently doing. I see the polytechnics as one of the great success stories—among many—of recent years.

    Pre-school Education
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the number of pre-school education places.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Total local authority expenditure on education, as allowed for in the most recent grant settlement, will permit continued increases in the numbers and proportion of under-fives in school. However, it is for authorities themselves to determine the scale of their provision in that discretionary area.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that that answer is absolute nonsense? Does she recognise that the financial controls that will result from poll tax capping and from further poll tax restrictions next year on local authorities, such as Lancashire, will mean a further reduction in the provision of education services for the under-fives? Does she agree that this country has an appalling record in the provision of services for the under-fives? Does she accept that the best 22 providers of those services are at present Labour authorities?
    Mrs. Rumbold: No, I cannot accept any of those propositions. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in provision for the under-fives since 1980. Like many previous Administrations, this Administration has sensibly targeted resources towards the cities where there is a greater requirement for the provision of nursery education.
    Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept, as many of her hon. Friends accept, and as the Prime Minister accepted when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, that the single most potent contribution that

    165
    the Government could make to raise the standards of education throughout an educational lifetime, and to maintain the standards of the family, would be to make greater provision of nursery education? During the present review, will my hon. Friend bear that in mind and plan accordingly for the future?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I know of his great interest in this subject and read his recent paper on nursery provision for the under-fives with great interest. He will be glad to know that this country has a good record in providing pre-school education, not simply by nursery education, but through the voluntary sector, with the provision of pre-school playgroups. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's views on the value of pre-school education, and those of my other hon. Friends.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Given the impact of pre-school education on the future education of the individual child—of which we are all aware—is not it time for the Minister to reconsider the discretion of local authorities and to make pre-school education part of the basic provision, for all parents and children who desire that opportunity?
    Mrs. Rumbold: At present we have the earliest starting age for full-time education of any of our European colleagues, other than the Netherlands. All our children start compulsory education at five. At present we do not see any reason for reducing the starting age for compulsory education to below five.
    Mr. Holt: In seeking additional resources for pre-school provision, will my hon. Friend ask the Government to reconsider the school-leaving age with a view to bringing it far more into line with Europe, to enable us to be more flexible; to improve training throughout our country and to bring us into line with Europe on that issue also; to reduce the incidence of crime and truancy among youngsters and to give us a greater impetus after 1992?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I share my hon. Friend's interest and concern about the school-leaving age and about the importance of encouraging young people to stay on in sensible training and education—I believe that that is what my hon. Friend wants—because that will lead us to a more disciplined and better trained society in the future. As I said, I believe that it is important that children should have pre-school education, but of a nature and type that accords with their parents' wishes.
    Ms. Armstrong: If the Government are concerned to offer choice to parents, why have not they fulfilled their commitment to enable every parent to have the opportunity to choose nursery education if they so wish? If, as we have read, the Minister's committee on education for the under-fives is to recommend a major expansion of nursery education, will she today guarantee that the Government will fund such an expansion?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady must give up her obsession with wanting every parent to have to send every child into some kind of nursery education within the state system. We have always believed in the principle of choice for parents, and it is that choice which we have supported. About 86 per cent. of our three and four-year-olds are currently in some form of pre-school education of the parents' choice. As for funding, the hon. Lady should
    166
    know that we are at present looking at my right hon. Friend's announcement of last week that there is to be an education support grant of £2.5 million. That will go towards the improvement of planning pre-school education, and of caring by nursery nurses and by others involved in nursery education.

    School Discipline
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources are being made available by his Department to help implement recommendations directed to central Government contained in the Elton report on school discipline.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): In the current financial year, central Government grant is supporting expenditure of some £6.1 million on projects arising from the recommendations of Lord Elton and his colleagues. We owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Elton and his colleagues for a thoughtful and thorough report.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the Elton report does not go far enough—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker:Order.
    Mr. Evans: —in that corporal punishment should be reintroduced into schools? Does he further agree that Lord Elton should write another report that deals with the disgraceful behaviour of the Opposition, in particular of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who perhaps should receive corporal—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This place is often likened to a school, but I do not think that the hon. Member's last remark is relevant.
    Mr. Nellist rose—
    Mr. Howarth: As always, my hon. Friend makes his points in highly effective style. He speaks with great force on an issue about which strong views and conflicting feelings are widely held. It was the Government's intention that the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 should give parents a right of choice on whether their children should be liable to corporal punishment in schools. But the House decided, on a free vote on these Benches, not to accept that policy. The Government accepted the will of the House and, in consequence, it is not legal to administer corporal punishment to pupils in maintained schools or to publicly funded pupils in independent schools.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Campbell-Savours.
    Mr. Nellist rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Campbell-Savours first.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of disciplining people in schools, may we have an assurance that Mr. Martin Turner of Croydon and all his colleagues who worked with him on the interesting document that was produced will be protected from any pressure that might be exerted by any education authority anywhere in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Howarth: It is no part of the values of the Conservative party to impose any sort of ideological tyranny. Mr. Turner is an employee of Croydon local education authority and I am sure that Mr. Turner's rights, and his freedom of thought and expression in that authority, will be guaranteed, as they should be.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the tragedy of the abolition of corporal punishment is that children are brought before the courts for small offences for which a stroke of the cane would have been more effective and immediate and would be of lasting value throughout their lives? Will he persuade his right hon. Friends in the Government to think again about that simple, important measure and to reintroduce modern, reasonable corporal punishment in schools for gross indiscipline?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend speaks with all the authority of his background as a headmaster and the House listens to him with respect when he speaks on these issues. If we debated the matter further, I have no doubt that he would make an important contribution. It is perhaps worth stressing that the Elton report emphasised in its recommendations to schools the importance of establishing a clear set of rules backed up by a system of rewards and punishments which are clearly understood and accepted by teachers, parents and pupils. Where that applies, as it does in many schools, and where there is the right partnership between parents and teachers, to help children to understand and respect the difference between right and wrong, the orderly atmosphere which is a precondition of effective teaching and learning is created.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Fatchett.
    Mr. Fatchett rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Nellist rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. This is a serious matter.
    Mr. Fatchett rose—
    Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: The only point of order that the hon. Gentleman can have is his distress at not being called. What is the point of order?
    Mr. Nellist: Is it not a fact that in your capacity as Speaker you have said several times from the Chair that if an hon. Member is named by another hon. Member it is normal practice to call the hon. Member who was named? Have you not said that in the past? If so, why—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear the hon. Member being named. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was."] All right. I will call Mr. Nellist. [Interruption.] Order. It takes up the time of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. Come along.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called Mr. Nellist.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows better than that.
    Mr. Nellist: If the Minister can tell his hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) that extra resources can be diverted to maintaining good order in schools, why will he not put resources into areas such as those that I mentioned last week so as to stop councils breaking health and safety regulations by teaching kids in toilets? Why will he not put extra resources into Tower Hamlets to stop the council breaking the terms of the Education Act 1944 by sending hundreds of children home every day because there are no teachers to teach them? Why—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Member the chance to raise a question about corporal punishment in schools and nothing else.
    Mr. Nellist: Why does the education team not take the beam out of its own eye before talking about motes in anyone else's?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman tells the House that he is keen on good discipline and the observation of regulations and warns against hypocrisy, but what puzzles me is that he also encourages the citizens of Coventry not to pay their community charge. If they do not pay their community charge, how can Coventry education authority have the resources that it needs to equip and staff its schools properly?
    When I was asked to take responsibility for the Coventry task force, I wrote to all Coventry Members suggesting that we meet to consider how we could work in the interests of Coventry. I was disappointed that I had no response whatever from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend says that the matter of corporal punishment was decided by a free vote in this House, but is that the whole story? Did not a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which sought to impinge upon the sovereignty of this Parliament, direct us that corporal punishment could not be used in schools? And did not the Government, without any debate in the House, reaffirm the European convention on human rights?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend raises much wider constitutional issues, but the House has debated and freely took its decision.
    Mr. Speaker: Now, Mr. Fatchett.
    Mr. Fatchett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you now understand and appreciate some of the problems of school discipline.
    The Minister, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), referred to £6 million to ease the problems of discipline, but that is less than £230 per school, so there is little money available on that basis. Does the Minister recognise that we live in a society in which the Government have presided over record crime levels, shown ambivalence towards the problems of law and order in their activities, and encouraged individualism, and that that is bound to be reflected in discipline problems in schools? Instead of simply blaming the

    169
    teachers, is it not time that the Government gave them the necessary resources and recognised their responsibility for the lack of discipline in our schools?
    Mr. Howarth: The Government make no apology for having encouraged individualism and enterprise. The hon. Gentleman's inability to recognise that those qualities assort perfectly well with self-discipline shows the narrowness of his conceptions. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman suggests that there is widespread disorderliness in our schools, as that is a gross disparagement of teachers and it is not the case. Beyond that, the House would be interested to know how much more money the Labour party would propose to spend.

    Advanced-level Examinations
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the development of advanced-level examinations.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have asked the School Examinations and Assessment Council to recommend general principles for advanced-level syllabuses and examinations, with a view to having an improved system in place by 1994. I have also asked the council for advice on the scope for embodying a range of core skills in the programme of all advanced-level students, and on the scope for credit transfer between A and AS-levels and vocational qualifications. I shall consider in due course the implications of what the council proposes.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to increase the proportion of our pupils who stay on at school for A-levels and other qualifications beyond GCSE so that that proportion compares with our continental counterparts? Does he feel that he can reconcile that requirement with the equally important one of maintaining academic rigour?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that the number staying on after 16 is increasing. The reforms that the Government have introduced over the years have a good deal to do with that. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to maintain the academic rigour, excellence and standards of A-levels. A number of other issues also need to be addressed in relation to the 16 to 19-year-old group.
    Mr. Straw: While it is certainly important that the examination at 18 years should be rigorous and of a high standard, does the Secretary of State recognise the widespread concern of university vice-chancellors, head teachers and many others about the narrowness of A-levels and the fact that that restricts the proportion of youngsters who study science at 18? Will the assessment of the 18-plus school examinations by the School Examinations and Assessment Council include the recommendations of the Higginson report? If it so chose, could the SEAC recommend the Higginson report recommendations?
    Mr. MacGregor: Obviously there are debates about those matters, but the Government have made their position clear on the Higginson recommendations. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to have broader educational activities in sixth forms. That is the purpose of the AS courses which are increasingly being
    170
    taken up by universities as a method of entry in conjunction with A-levels, and that is an important way to proceed.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made with the establishment of grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am pleased to say that considerable progress is being made. As I said earlier, the first 18 grant-maintained schools started last September, and 44 grant-maintained schools will be operating this September. There will then be more grant-maintained schools in total than there are secondary schools in two thirds of English local education authorities.
    Mr. Coombs: I welcome the excellent progress being made in this area, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the more schools there are that have experience of local management, the more there are that want to go the step further to grant-maintained status? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that nothing more clearly illustrates the Labour party's obsession with levelling down and its antipathy towards high standards than its vindictive opposition to this excellent idea?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. It is likely that, as more and more schools see the advantages of local management, they will also see the additional advantages which grant-maintained status gives them, taking them further in the direction of complete control over their budgets, with additional budgets at their disposal as a result of the expenditure from central funds and the further advantages that grant-maintained status brings. I entirely agree with the charges that my hon. Friend makes against the Opposition's policy. On assisted places, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, the Opposition deny choice and greater variety in the system. Their policy on assisted places denies opportunities to those parents who are prepared to make a contribution to their children's education which many Opposition Members have themselves had.
    Mr. Flannery: The Minister must be easily pleased, as that number of 40-odd so-called grant-maintained schools, which we would describe as having opted out, is well below what the Government planned. Is he aware that in cities such as my own—Sheffield—there has not been one application for grant-maintained status, and I believe the same is true of Leeds, Wakefield and other great cities because people are completely opposed to the centralisation of education and believe that education should be the responsibility of local education authorities?
    Mr. MacGregor: Given that grant-maintained status has only recently been introduced, there has been excellent progress so far. The hon. Gentleman should talk to head teachers and teachers in the grant-maintained schools, not to mention parents and governors. He will then see how popular they are and what a difference grant-maintained status makes to schools. I have described the policy as the jewel in the crown for parent power and I believe that its success will grow and grow.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Like many of my colleagues in Nottinghamshire, I have received correspondence from

    171
    boards of governors in our schools complaining bitterly at their treatment by the county with regard to local management. Is my right hon. Friend saying that the Government's advice to those boards of governors is to apply immediately for grant-maintained status?
    Mr. MacGregor: Certainly I think that that is an option which more and more schools will wish to consider, and I hope that it will be drawn to their attention.

    Pre-school Education
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding pre-school education; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives a good deal of correspondence on education for the under-fives. Most recently, more than 50 organisations and individuals have submitted evidence to my committee of inquiry on the quality of the educational experience of three and four-year-olds.
    Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, you have reached No. 13, so I think that you are wonderful.
    Is the Minister aware that, irrespective of what Conservative Members have said today, Nottinghamshire county council provides a first-class service in the difficult conditions created by Government cuts? The Government, and particularly the Department of Education and Science, should be ashamed of Britain's pre-school education. We are struggling like hell to provide what is necessary and it is high time that the Minister cleared out all those responsible for that situation.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The chairman of Nottinghamshire education committee, Councillor Fred Riddell, has assured me that he is proud of the education service that he provides. Apparently he provides it without much trouble.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Notwithstanding the educational importance of getting under-fives into some organised system as quickly as possible, should not we also give some priority to ensuring that reception classes in primary schools are of manageable size? If we do not do that, the earlier work may be to no avail.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. The quality of the education received by three and four-year-olds is of paramount importance. That is why my committee of inquiry is looking at the quality of the people who teach the reception classes and the number of youngsters entering those classes. If those factors are not right, early education comes to nought.

    Teacher Vacancies
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current level of teacher vacancies throughout England; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science hopes to make available later this month the data for teacher vacancies as at January 1990.
    Ms. Quin: Are not the worst and most serious teacher shortages in maths, science, technology and modern languages, which are an essential part of the national curriculum? What hope can the Minister offer that when schools reopen in September after the summer holidays there will be a great improvement in the situation so that children will find qualified teachers ready to teach them in all the necessary subjects?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As the hon. Lady knows, my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is looking urgently at this matter. There are bursaries to address teacher shortages in those subjects and to encourage postgraduate certificate of education students to go into teaching. In addition, we have mounted a good advertising campaign urging people to return to teaching, and especially to teach subjects for which there is a teacher shortage. The Government recognise that it is difficult to obtain enough teachers to teach certain subjects, but we are taking every opportunity to address the problem.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Houston.
    Miss Hoey: I am sure that the Leader of the House would like to join us all in congratulating the England football team on winning the fair play award in the World cup. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to congratulate and take the credit for our sportsmen and women when things are going well and after the event, but does he agree that perhaps a little more fair play should be shown to voluntary sports clubs which are being crippled by the unified business rate? Is he proud of the fact that sport is more highly taxed in Britain than in any other European country?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: British sport is doing very well in a number of voluntary and professional respects. I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the England team on winning the fair play award. The House will be pleased that English clubs are to be readmitted to European football contests. Now that they have secured that place in Europe, we must be anxious to see that they stay there. If that is to be achieved, all hon. Members will join me in hoping that British fans will behave to the same standards as the England team in winning the award to which the hon. Lady referred.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave a morneni: ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer to the Law Officers for consideration by the fraud squad the findings of the Lightman inquiry into the accounts of the National Union of Mineworkers? Is he

    173
    aware that that interminable inquiry, which did not receive evidence from key witnesses, found that 17 secret accounts were in operation and that £200,000 of Russian miners' money was used for personal reasons by Mr. Heathfield and Mr. Scargill? The report concluded that there had been a clear breach of the law with serious misapplications of funds and a breach of duty.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be right for Ministers to comment directly on those gravely disquieting allegations. I am sure that the House hopes that all the appropriate authorities, and members of the National Union of Mineworkers, are studying the evidence most carefully.
    It is also worth noting that the Government's trade union reforms have made unions and their leaders much more accountable to members. The role of the commissioner for the rights of trade union members should make such happenings much less likely in future. Meanwhile, all those who joined the Union of Democratic Mineworkers will be exceedingly glad that they did so.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Lord President give a categorical assurance that the Government's community care proposals are to be implemented as planned next April?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Those proposals will be getting under way in accordance with the statute in due course.
    Mr. Hattersley: I understand why the Lord President is not so definite as he was when he last answered a question from me a fortnight ago. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Health told the Select Committee last week, when asked if the plan would go ahead as scheduled, that the date of implementation was
    "not as definite as it was."
    What did that mean?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I repeat that the proposals and plans will be getting under way at the appointed date.
    Mr. Hattersley: If the Lord President even attempts to answer the question, he may tell us whether he does not know the answer or whether he simply chooses not to give it. Is it not a fact that the plans are not going ahead as scheduled because (a) the Government will not devote enough central funds to financing them and (b) they are afraid that local authorities will have to make up the deficit by increasing already heavy poll tax burdens? Are not the Government simply saying that they do not care about the old and sick, and those who look after them, as long as they can avoid another exposure of the poll tax?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government will be maintaining the community charge subject to the reviews still taking place, the outcome of which will be announced in due course. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the implementation, and its pace, of any plans passed by the House must depend on the scale of resources available. That is a message that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) seeks to proclaim on behalf of the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should pay attention to what his right hon. and learned Friend says.
    Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that local authorities have put a good deal of
    174
    work into preparations for the introduction of the community care proposals, which have been warmly welcomed in all parts of the House and the community? It will be a source of concern, confusion and disappointment, not only to local authorities but to potential beneficiaries, if the proposals are not implemented on the date that, for a long time, we have been given to understand that they would be.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the natural interest and concern in the matter. The obligations are on the statute book. However, the pace at which such measures are introduced must inevitably depend on the feasibility of the scheme and the resources available.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: While she is out of the country—
    Hon. Members: Who?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Winnick:—and the Leader of the House does not have much to lose anyway, why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not admit that the annual report of the community health councils shows only too well what is happening, with ward closures, cancelled operations, inadequate funding of the national health service and many people being discharged from hospital far too early? Does he agree that the Government's measures have made the national health service a poor relation of the private health sector? At the next election, who does he think will believe for one moment that the NHS has been safe in the hands of the Tory Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: All those who take account of the fact that last year the increase proposed for this year was no less than £2.9 billion, that the total increase in resources to the national health service has been 42 per cent. since the Government came to power in 1979, that there are 14,000 more doctors and dentists, 67,000 more nurses and midwives and a vast increase in the total services provided in the face of a rising population.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend concerned about the rapid rise in company liquidations in the past 12 months? Does he agree that it is time for the Government to consider ways of containing inflation other than the rather blunt instrument of interest rates? Is he aware that if there are company liquidations in all major sectors of our manufacturing economy, as there are, that will lead to unemployment, which will cost the Government a lot of money?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend would do well to take account of the fact that, notwitstanding what he has said, there continues to be a strong net growth in the number of new business formations. At the end of last year, they were running at about 1,500 per week. That is further testimony to the continuing strength of the economy.
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Meale: Is the Leader of the House aware that as we head towards the summer recess, homelessness in Britain is becoming considerably worse? is he further aware that it is estimated that about 750,000 people in Britain are homeless, that 120,000 are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and that 6,000 are living on the streets?
    When the Prime Minister returns from Texas, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman show her a video of the excellent programme, "Cathy, Where are You Now?", which was broadcast last night? Then perhaps both sides of the House can get together to solve the problem of homelessness before we have another winter with people living on the streets.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful for the fact that we recently announced an increase of £2 million in the resources available for advice and help for the homeless, an additional £15 million in resources for shelters, and an additional £250 million in resources for London and the south-east over the next two years. The hon. Gentleman should also remember that 100,000 dwellings, under the control of Labour councils, are standing empty. Indeed, the worst authorities in that respect are all Labour controlled.
    Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that in the current community charge review there will be an absolute rejection of any idea of a return to the domestic rating system—something that was so often condemned, especially by the Opposition?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has the assurance that we have given many times—that the current review, the results of which will be announced in due course, is a review of the operation and not a review of the structure of the community charge. There is a great deal more certainty about the position under this Government than there is about the position under the Opposition's plans.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given that the leaders at the G7 summit have issued a communiqué suggesting that the 1990s should be known as the decade of democracy, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us his definition of democracy? If he believes that people's aspirations are best expressed through the ballot box and through elected representatives, what message has he for the people of Scotland, who have made it abundantly clear that they do not want either the siting of a nuclear waste dump in, or the transportation of nuclear waste through, their country? Does he accept that Nirex and the Secretary of State can override those people's aspirations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Secretary of State's position was set out in the reasons that he gave for his modifications to the Highland regional council structure plan. His intention to modify it in that way has been advertised. Objections to his proposed modifications should be submitted in writing by 10 August.
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to commend the setting up by the Lord Chancellor of 94 new children's courts, with special judges who will have special training? Can we hope that procedures that formerly intimidated children, such as the dress of judges and the procedure of the courts, will be changed and that there will be more women judges in that important area?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that important step forward in the implementation of the Children Act 1989, which will promote and safeguard the welfare of children as all hon. Members would wish. My hon. Friend can take some comfort from the fact that judges with proper training in tha field will be well aware of the need that she identified for sympathetic treatment. She will also be glad to know that the Lord Chancellor is anxious to see more women on the bench. As there are a growing number of women with experience as advocates, the number of women on the bench is likely to grow and that would be a good thing.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Lord President find time to ask the Prime Minister when she comes back from Texas to talk to the junior Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, who is supposedly involved in consumer affairs but seems to be hell bent on killing my Consumer Guarantees Bill which gives consumers the right to have shoddy goods replaced, and tell him that if he is to continue in his job as consumer affairs Minister he should represent consumers and not manufacturers?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I understand the matter, the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Bill.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the rejection of socialism all over eastern Europe has one main feature—that people throughout eastern Europe recognise that free enterprise and the free market culture are the best guarantees of democracy and freedom? Does he agree that that should be the case throughout Europe and that the only people who do not recognise that fact are the members of the Labour party?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the people of eastern Europe are turning their backs on socialism, having seen its catastrophic failure. I wish that we could say the same of the Opposition.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Department of Trade and Industry (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[ Mr. Chapman.]

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Amplification has been cut down yet again. Television audiences can hear very well, and hon. Members can hardly hear at all, but I suppose that it does not really matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It does really matter. If and when the House resolves to make the experiment of television permanent, I understand that the Committee will consider the quality of the microphones in the Chamber.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you clarify for the assistance of the whole House the exact rules on points of order during Question Time? While I appreciate that you were in a difficult position during questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, it has always been understood that points of order are taken at the end of questions, not in the middle.
Mr. Speaker: For the edification of the hon. Member and of the whole House, I refer him to Hansard of 12 February 1987, when I spelt out that matter in great detail. If a point of order which needs my immediate attention is raised during a debate, I have to take it. Similarly, if a point of order is raised in Question Time needing my immediate attention, I have to hear it. But I do not take points of order on other matters until after private notice questions and statements on Standing Order No. 20 applications have been dealt with.
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which relates to Question 8, from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). Is it not a fact that the Lord President of the Council and the Prime Minister, when she is here, are responsible for questions that relate directly to her, and that the question of the hon. Member for Harrow, West was not related to the responsibility of the Lord President of the Council, but was simply party political propaganda on behalf of the Conservative party?
Mr. Speaker: I have to make a judgment on that. This House is here to discuss policies. If a question has some relation to a calculation of the Government's costs, for instance, then it is entirely in order to ask it.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), Mr. Speaker. Not only was it difficult to hear his point of order but it was difficult to hear your response, too. Is it not appropriate, Sir, that the amplification in this place should be turned up before we hold the debate on whether television is to continue—so that Members can hear what is going on and the House can make the right decisions? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I may be granted some tolerance to answer this question. If there were not so much noise from the Back Benches it would be perfectly possible to hear the answers. When the House resolves to make permanent the televising of the House, no doubt the quality of the microphones in the Chamber will be looked at; but I have had few complaints about that quality so far.
178
The fact that Members cannot hear is directly related to the amount of noise on the Back Benches near the Member who is speaking.
Mr. Graham Riddick:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that in recent weeks, when the Prime Minister has been away, the deputy Leader of the Opposition has usually put a question to the deputy Prime Minister. Is that conventional? I had always thought that the Leader of the Opposition should put the question to my right hon. and learned Friend. Does the Leader of the Opposition think—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that: it is perfectly in order.
Mr. Thomas Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As someone who uses a hearing aid in the House of Commons, may I ask that Members speak clearly so that the people of this country who are deaf can understand what they are saying? The House should understand that thousands of deaf people in this country rely on proper information being conveyed to them from the House so that they can enjoy their democratic rights as citizens.
Mr. Speaker: I am not certain whether there was a point of order in that for me. The present microphones have a wide range, so if Members create noise behind or in front of a Member who is on his feet, their voices are picked up also.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the same subject of audibility. On many previous occasions when something abusive or unparliamentary—or even merely someone's name—has been said in the House, you have said, "I did not hear it," and that was the end of the matter. But today you changed that; you did not hear the name of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) mentioned, but once there was an outcry from other Opposition Members, you accepted their word although you had not heard the name yourself. Was that in order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to be monitored by the hon. Gentleman so regularly. I frequently say that I have not heard comments made from a sedentary position—often by the hon. Gentleman himself. In this case, the hon. Member who raised the matter did so because he claimed that he had been named in the question asked by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), and I was on my feet to prevent that question from going any further.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was quite a bit of noise and the amplifiers may not be working properly, but I listened intently to the deputy Prime Minister answering the question from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). May I take it that, when he was talking about money, he was referring to the plethora of frauds at Rover and Harrods and to all the other Government fiddles that have taken place? Did he say that? If so, I should like to join in—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are in grave danger of straying well out of order. Ten-minute rule motion—Mr. Harry Cohen.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Mr. Norman Tebbit.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that—quite inadvertently, I am sure—you referred to the occasion "when" this House would take the decision to extend the televising of the House. You did not put in the word "if. You should emphasise that no decision has been taken to make the televising of our proceedings a permanent feature. That is a decision for the House. I am sure that that is what you meant to say.
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Member will kindly read Hansard tomorrow morning, I think he will see that, in answer to the first question from the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) I said, "if and when."
Mr. Ron Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Obviously hon. Members should be heard. They should also be seen. Could the lighting be increased? It is evident during supplementary questions that some hon. Members are called before others. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Something should be done about it. Could we have a league table showing who gets called and who does not?
Mr. Speaker: It is a good point. I have a league table. I have a computer, and I do my utmost to ensure that every hon. Member gets a fair share of time in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is not deprived in that respect.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Mr. Speaker: Nor is this hon. Member.
Mr. Corbyn: Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, what opportunities there will be for the House to contrast the treatment of those who sought to defend mining communities during the miners strike, with international working-class support, with the treatment of a number of
180
former Cabinet Ministers who have lined their pockets by accepting directorships for which they get hundreds of thousands of pounds a year—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the time to debate matters of that kind. There are other matters to be debated today. Ten-minute rule motion—Mr.Cohen.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member last time, but I know the television cameras are still on. So I shall call him.
Mr. Davies: On the point of audibility, Sir, you said that you had received few complaints. I hope that it may assist you in attempting to assess the feeling of hon. Members, which I know you try to do fairly, if I add a complaint of my own. There seems to be a remarkable amount of ambiguity and a reluctance to concede explicitly that, as the television operators have demanded that our microphones should be turned down, we are suffering from the problems about which we complain. Can we have a clear explanation of whether televising the House has led to us suffering from this problem?
Mr. Speaker: This matter has often been raised before. The hon. Member should know that the microphones have not been turned either up or down. They are as they were before. The fact that hon. Members cannot hear what is said in the House is entirely due to the behaviour of other hon. Members in the House. Just so long as we have this kind of barracking from the Back Benches—and even, sometimes, from the Front Benches—we shall be unable to hear, even if we do replace the microphones.
Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to correct you, Sir, but the technical problem is nothing to do with the turning down of the mikes; it is the amplifiers that have been turned down, so that television audiences do not get a mumble in the background. That is the problem, and that is what we are suffering from.
Mr. Speaker: Let us see if we can now get on with the ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.

Mortgage Assistance
3.43 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I do not have to worry about the volume, because I have a very sound set of proposals.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill further to regulate the relationship between mortgagor and mortgagee; to make provision, in circumstances in which a mortgagor is unable to meet mortgage repayments, for shared ownership of a property between mortgagor and mortgagee; to permit local authorities and housing associations to assume the responsibilities and rights of mortgagees in certain circumstances; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the resources and requirements of local authorities and housing associations in respect of shared ownership of housing; to make provision for a mortgagee to rent a property to its mortgagor if he is in repayment arrears; to place a duty upon lending institutions to make arrangements for the management of a mortgagor's debt before seeking repossession of a property; to make the cost of shared-ownership purchases eligible for housing revenue account subsidy; and for connected purposes.
The Bill could just as easily have been called the Mortgage Rescue Scheme Bill, or the Mortgage Choice Bill. It is a radical measure that is both innovative and important. It is important because it addresses the serious problem of home repossessions because of mortgage arrears which are getting worse because of the Government's high interest rate policy. We now have the highest interest rate in the industrialised world. Interest rates are the Goverrment's sole weapon to tackle the consumer credit boom that they unleashed to win the last general election. As United Kingdom production has not kept pace, we have a £20 billion per annum balance-of-payments crisis. By using interest rates, the Government are taking it out on recent home buyers.
Interest rates are reflected in mortgage rates, which have increased from 9–8 per cent. to 15.4 per cent. in just over a year. The average new mortgage holder in the United Kingdom is paying £144 a month more, and £250 a month more in London. The chief executive of the charitably owned estate agency, Andrews, said, "It is absurd to expect young people with expanding familites to take on 25-year home loans, budget for repayments out of tightly controlled incomes and then have their monthly mortgage commitment soar within six months." That is what has happened, and many hundreds of thousands of households have been trapped because high mortgage rates have become an integral part of the Government's economic strategy.
It has led to an arrears time bomb. Recently, I asked a couple of parliamentary questions about the numbers of people who were six to 12 months in arrears. the Treasury Minister replied that, on 31 December last year, the figure was some 58,000 households. It is significant that he chose December: a more recent date would have revealed a much higher figure, as it has rocketed since then.
When I asked the Minister about those between one and six months in arrears, he refused to answer, saying that he had nothing more to add. The Council of Mortgage Lenders certainly had something to add, saying that more than 500,000 people are in that category and the numbers are soaring. In its July newsletter, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said that in 1989, there were some 47,093 repossession orders in England alone, and that there had been a marked increase in the south-east.
182
The Association of London Authorities reported that, in 1989, well over 600 households had been accepted as homeless in London as a result of repossession. Probably many more people have been rehoused by local authorities, but other reasons have been given. All the signs are that there will be a substantial increase in those numbers this year.
My Bill is timely and necessary. It would help a large number of hard-pressed mortgage payers who are currently suffering because of high mortgage rates and they are fearful of repossession. Let me outline the main proposals. First, a mortgage payer would be able to convert part-ownership, scaling down his ownership in the property, so that the repayments become manageable. Effective, it would buy people time over a five-year period.
Secondly, a mortgage payer could convert to shared ownership, so that a local authority or housing association could take over the mortgage with rights in the property. That local authority or housing association would then receive the revised mortgage payments, and the rent and its capital would be returned when the property was sold. The purpose of such a scheme would be for repayments to become manageable for the mortgage payer. My Bill contains a mechanism to prevent soaring house prices from causing such damage. If there were excessive lending by the building societies, the part-ownership period would be longer and the local authority could charge a transfer fee on the building society to take over that mortgage.
The third option would be for the mortgage payer to convert from ownership to rental with the local authority. That is Labour party policy, and it would avoid people being thrown out into the streets. That would enable a mortgage payer to get back on his feet; there would be nothing to stop him repurchasing the property, as the Bill does not interfere with right-to-buy provisions. If a mortgage payer, through no fault of his own, cannot maintain the repayments, even under a shared ownership scheme, he could enter a rental arrangement with the local authority so that he would not be evicted.
The fourth major provision in the Bill would place a duty on the lending institutions to seek contract with mortgage payers to sort out alternative arrangements prior to any court action for repossession. It is a scandal that a minute or two minutes in court without the mortgage payer knowing what is happening can cause someone to lose his home. That is happening at the moment, and my Bill would stop it.
The fifth major provision of the Bill is that the Secretary of State for the Environment will have to report regularly to the House on the special funds that he will provide to local authorities, such as the new borrowing arrangements to enable them to undertake shared ownership schemes and the special grants to housing associations.
The housing finance regime would have to be altered. Of course a cost would be involved, but it would be a capital cost, because it would increase local authorities' borrowing allocation. In the meantime, revenue—repayments and part rents—would be coming in. It would benefit local authorities' income generation and it would mean less, not more, on poll tax bills. It must be cheaper than the cost of homelessness and the wasteful cost of bed and breakfast.
My Bill would apply only to mortgage payers in genuine difficulties and not to those who are in wilful arrears. That would be easy to operate, because the criteria

183
for whether they were in wilful arrears would be the same as the definition of intentionally homeless in the homeless legislation.
The question must be asked: if I can provide some protection and choice for hard-pressed mortgage payers, why cannot the Government? There was nothing in the Budget or in the Finance Bill, which we shall consider next week, and they still have nothing to offer. They simply do not have the political will, because they do not care about struggling home buyers.
The Prime Minister recently spoke of a scheme to convert rents to mortgages, about which she gave no details, but that does nothing to stem the current flood of mortgage repossessions. I remind the Government that there is no choice if there is coercion, and high rents are coercion. Once ordinary people are on the Government's scheme, they lose all their rights of security because of the high mortgage rates that prevail.
My challenge to the Government is to accept my Bill and their scheme. Otherwise, they are only pretending to deal with this serious problem; they are only teasing about owner-occupation when they are prepared to snatch away home ownership.
The principal solution is low interest rates—that is the main part of Labour's policy—but there is a strong case for providing the protection and choice that I propose for mortgage payers. They certainly should not be made to bear the brunt of the national economic mismanagement. My Bill is a new way to defend and to extend home ownership, and I commend it to the House.
3.54 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Lady seeking to oppose the Bill?
Mrs. Gorman: I seek to oppose the Bill, not because I lack sympathy for the very small number of people who find themselves in difficulties with their mortgages, but because the solution of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr Cohen), which includes yet more regulations, this time to be imposed on the mortgage lending business, is likely to have an opposite effect to that which he intends because building societies will be even less likely to want to help people whose incomes are fairly low and who may be unable to maintain their payments at the original level.
Building societies have a liberal attitude and, contrary to the impression that the hon. Gentleman gave, many mortgage companies enter into dialogue with people who find themselves in difficulty. I urge him, using his capacity as a Member of Parliament, to approach building societies directly with such cases. I have done so on behalf of some of my constituents, with great success.
The main fault of the Bill is that it does not tackle the underlying problem in housing—that over the years the Labour party has constantly sought to regulate, to bully and to control the private-sector landlord, so that the only option open to people on low incomes is to buy or to seek housing from their local council.
When I was young—[Interruption.]—which was not all that long ago—working-class people like us had a choice in housing, a choice in rented housing in the private sector. The Labour party has destroyed that choice by its constant bullying of the private landlord. The Conservative party is trying to bring back the private landlord. If the hon.
184
Gentleman is seriously concerned about the plight of these people, he should urge his own Front Bench to lay off attacking measures that will restore confidence to the private landlord. Every time our party suggests some liberalisation, the Labour party offers threats to any landlord who tries to rent out his property.
There is a great deal of empty property available, as all hon. Members are aware. Most of that does not come up for rent, because the owners are frightened that, if we ever suffered under Labour legislation again, their properties would be sequestrated because the Labour party does not believe in the private rented sector. In raising this proposal to help tenants, the hon. Gentleman is neglecting the role that his party has played in creating this problem. For that reason, I oppose the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: The question is, That the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in the Bill. As many of that opinion say aye. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aye."] To the contrary, no. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."]
As the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has spoken against the Bill, she must say "no".
Mrs. Gorman: No.
Question agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Don Dixon, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Eric Martlew and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the relationship between mortgagor and mortgagee: to make provision, in circumstances in which a mortgagor is unable to meet mortgage repayments, for shared ownership of a property between mortgagor and mortgagee; to permit local authorities and housing associations to assume the responsibilities and rights of mortgagees in certain circumstances; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the resources and requirements of local authorities and housing associations in respect of shared ownership of housing; to make provision for a mortgagee to rent a property to its mortgagor if he is in repayment arrears; to place a duty upon lending institutions to make arrangements for the management of a mortgagor's debt before seeking repossession of a property; to make the cost of shared-ownership purchases eligible for housing revenue account subsidy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 183.]
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with points of order. Is this connected with the ten-minute Bill?
Mr. Cryer: Yes. I noticed that you cautioned the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who opposed the

185
Bill. You said that it was customary—as it is—for any hon. Member who opposes a ten-minute Bill to follow that opposition by pressing the matter to a Division.
Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that you did not call a Division on the ten-minute Bill because the sole voice against this excellent Bill was that of the hon. Member for Billericay, who was mistaken, as she usually is? It is a poor reflection on the Conservative Benches that they cannot find one supporter for their misguided representative.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. If an hon. Member opposes a Bill, he or she must shout "No" on the first occasion. When I put the question again, if my saying, "The ayes have it" is not challenged, a Division is not called. None the less, if an hon. Member speaks against a Bill, but does not carry it to a Division, he or she takes up the time of the House. There may therefore be a case for considering the procedure in the light of the time taken from subsequent debates.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am still on my feet. This is an estimates day, which is a prized opportunity for Back-Bench Members—especially, in this case, Welsh Members and those from the south-west—to debate flooding. Points of order take up time, just as much as opposition to ten-minute Bills.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order if they are related to this matter.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether one way of trying to overcome this problem—if you had the authority; obviously you would tell the House—might be that, if information was given to your office that an hon. Member wanted to oppose a ten-minute Bill, which is the normal procedure, that hon. Member could state whether he or she intended to seek a vote. It is a mockery if an hon. Member has 10 minutes in which to propose a potential Bill, but then another hon. Member, from another party, argues against it but refuses to call for a vote. Surely that is a waste of time.
I believe that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) refused to call for a vote because she knew full well that the Opposition would have won without hesitation. The hon. Lady therefore wasted the time of the House by putting forward a feeble case and then refusing to call for a vote. Surely that is a form of political cowardice.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one thing at a time.
I must, of course, operate the rules as they are at the moment. At the moment, I am required to give an hon. Member who wishes to oppose a Bill the opportunity to do so. What I was saying a moment ago was that, given the pressure of time on subsequent debates, perhaps the Select Committee on Procedure should now look at this matter again.
Mr. Tony Favell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you share my boredom at bogus points of order being raised during television time. Would it not be a good idea if you were given a switch and could turn off the television cameras whenever an Opposition Member made a bogus point of order?
Mr. Speaker: I am somewhat of an expert in bogus points of order. The problem is that there seems to be a tendency to raise points of order during television time—I put it no higher than that, and I would not wish to make any accusations in the Chamber. We all know the television cameras transmit live until 3.50 pm and I have found from experience that, if there is no statement or private notice question, points of order tend to be raised and seem to cut off, almost automatically, at 3.50 pm. I sometimes wonder what the reason for that might be.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Tony Banks.
Mr. Corbyn: I rose before my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: I waited until we were alone to raise this point of order. [ Laughter.] I could be wrong on this—I usually am—but has it not been the case until fairly recently that, when an hon. Member rises to oppose a ten-minute rule application, there is a vote? That was the convention. However, that has changed at some stage and an hon. Member is now allowed simply to voice opposition. I wonder whether you can confirm that, Mr. Speaker, because your point about this matter being considered by the Select Committee on Procedure is most relevant.
Mr. Speaker: The rule has always been that an hon. Member may speak against a Bill, provided that the shout of "No" is heard. That is the objection. However, I repeat that that is not a good practice and that we should consider whether to allow what are almost free kicks to continue in view of the time that we need in this place to debate other important matters.
Mr. Corbyn: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker, at 4.2 pm. I welcome your suggestion that the Select Committee on Procedure should consider ten-minute Bills because, as you know, I take them seriously. A Bill is often introduced at this stage, carried without Division or, as in this case, carried with opposition but no Division, yet it can be killed off on a Friday afternoon by one of the Government Whips muttering, "Object."
When the Select Committee on Procedure considers this matter, perhaps it should also consider whether there might be some way by which, if an hon. Member goes to the effort of introducing a ten-minute Bill—a serious piece of legislation and a serious proposal—and it is carried at that stage, it cannot be objected to by the simple expediency of the Whips. We should ensure that it is properly dealt with and brought back to the House as a serious piece of legislation. It should not be dismissed as a mere 10-minute speech by one hon. Member.
Mr. Speaker: The danger is that the public could be misled by the procedure of the ten-minute rule. The Bill that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has asked leave to bring in today has not been passed. The hon. Gentleman has simply asked leave to introduce his Bill.

187
When the Select Committee on Procedure looks again at this matter, perhaps it might also reconsider the procedure whereby it is possible to introduce a ten-minute Bill after the last day on which there is an opportunity for its Second Reading on a Friday. In many ways, a ten-minute Bill is an empty gesture at this time of year.
Mr. Tony Banks: I have one next week.
Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have taken the opportunity to rebuke me for opposing a ten-minute rule Bill—which I did, but I also called "No"—and it was your choice to decide whether to call a Division. It ill behoves you, Mr. Speaker—[Interuption.]—to accept points of order which are critical from Opposition Members, who are not backward in opposing ten-minute rule Bills. There are few opportunities in the House for Back Benchers who feel strongly on subjects to make their views known. This has been one such occasion. I may be in a minority now but, to paraphrase Disraeli, there will come a time when the House will follow me on this subject.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady must not get upset. I was certainly not rebuking her. She was perfectly in order in doing what she did; she was following the procedure. I was questioning that procedure, not what the hon. Lady did.
Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with an important matter. The fact of causing a Division to take place is often a deterrent to hon. Members getting to their feet and speaking on an issue. The knowledge that one is about to cause a vote to take place by one's Opposition acts as a deterrent to speaking. Is a precedent now being created by which hon. Members will be able to air their views and then not have to do anything about it? If so, we shall be opening a whole can of worms, which could result in hon. Members airing their views, secure in the knowledge that they need not take the matter further.
Mr. Tony Banks: That is what we have been talking about.
Mr. Flannery: I hope that my hon. Friend will be quiet and heed what I am saying. I am making a sound point. Mr. Speaker and I fully appreciate the point I am making.
Mr. Winnick: Hear, hear—said by a former headmaster.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is an old hand, and he must be aware that the point that he raises is precisely the issue that we have been discussing for the last 10 minutes or so. We have been agreeing that perhaps the procedure should be looked at, and I hope that it will be.

ESTIMATES DAY
[3RD ALLOT FED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES 1990–91
    CLASS III, VOTE 3
    [Relevant document: Third report from the Welsh Affairs Committee of Sesssion 1989–90 on the breach of the Sea Defences of 26th-27th February along the North Wales coast (House of Commons paper No. 426).]

    Sea Defences and Flood Damage
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceedng £87,366,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation for sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other services.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    4.8 pm
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the day when the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has published its report relating to the breach of sea defences along the north Wales coast on 26 and 27 February this year.
    The key point I wish to emphasise in relation to the Estimates is that secure sea defences are crucial. But if freak weather conditions occur and some defences are put at risk, it is vital to recognise that money is not well spent in financing the operations of the Neptune warning system in its present form if, as happened at Towyn, two conditions apply.
    The first is that the maritime district authorities do not take seriously—or they even ignore completely—the Neptune warning that they receive from the National Rivers Authority via the police relating to high tide and tidal surge. That information is collected by the Meteorological Office in the form of a storm tide warning service at a cost to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, according to the estimates, of £339,000.
    The second is that information on offshore wave heights supplied by the Meteorological Office to the National rivers Authority is not passed to the maritime district authorities, so the information that those authorities receive is incomplete. In other words, the maritime authorities receive only tide and predicted tidal surge levels and do not receive offshore wave levels, information that they require to enable them to determine what they must do under extreme weather conditions.
    The extensive flooding along the north Wales coast which followed the severe weather conditions of 26 and 27 February resulted from the simultaneous incidence of three factors: first, a predicted high spring tide of between 4.87 m and 5.07 m above ordnance datum; secondly, a deep depression approaching from the west causing a tidal surge which increased the depth of water approaching the coastline by up to 1.42 m above the predicted level; thirdly, storm to violent storm force winds recorded as 10 to 11 on the Beaufort scale from the north and north-west causing waves up to 6 m high.

    189
    As the scale of the damage was greatest in the Colwyn borough council area, where about 5,000 people were evacuated from their homes, I shall direct my remarks largely to that area. It is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who is a senior Conservative member of the Select Committee that I chair.
    On 14 May this year, the Select Committee visited the areas affected by the flooding along the north Wales coast and met local people in their homes and caravans. On 15 May, the Committee met at the community centre in Towyn to take oral evidence from the borough councils of Colwyn, Delyn and Rhuddlan. We also took evidence at the same venue from members of the British Railways Board, because the sea wall that was breached at Towyn at about midday on 26 February was owned by British Rail. We also received 26 written memoranda. We are grateful to the Ordnance Survey for supplying us with aerial photographs of the coastal belt, and to the Towyn citizens advice bureau for providing us with individual case studies of people who experienced difficulties with insurance companies in making their claims.
    The most disturbing aspect of the inquiry must be the ignorance displayed by the most senior local government officers of Colwyn borough council about the Operation Neptune warning which the council received from the police at 08.53 hours on the morning of 26 February. Indeed, on six separate occasions during the oral evidence session in the Towyn community centre, the director of housing and technical services, without any contradiction from his chief executive, the borough treasurer or the assistance chief executive for legal and administrative affairs, emphasised and re-emphasised that the council was not informed of the Neptune warning.
    In paragraph 53 of the evidence, the director of housing and technical services said:
    "I do have to say that the Neptune warning system was not received by us on that morning."
    In paragraph 54, he said:
    "We were not warned of the surge effect on the tide."
    In paragraph 55, he said:
    "We get the message relayed to us by the local police and we did not get it on that particular day."
    In paragraph 57, he said:
    "It did not happen on that morning, no."
    In paragraph 62, he said:
    "I have to report we did not receive our Neptune warning on that morning. It was only by the observation of officers that we saw conditions were of that nature and put everybody on warning."
    In paragraph 67, he said:
    "There is no record of having received a Neptune warning by our source, which is the North Wales police."
    The council subsequently informed us in writing that Colwyn borough council received a Neptune warning on the morning of 26 February at 08.53 hours. It must be deeply disturbing to the people of Towyn and, indeed, to all who reside in maritime areas threatened by flooding from the sea, that senior officers of a Welsh local authority did not know six weeks after the dramatic events of 26 February that their local authority had received an Operation Neptune warning. I have little doubt that, had the Select Committee not pursued that line of questioning, Colwyn borough council might still have been under the mistaken impression that no warning was received.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): In fairness to those whom he has criticised, did the hon. Gentleman and his Committee receive any evidence that suggested a lack of reliability on the part of the Neptune system?
    Mr. Wardell: No, we did not. As I said earlier, the Meteorological Office conveys to the National Rivers Authority two separate pieces of information. First, it conveys information about the height of the tide and the tidal surge. Secondly, it separately conveys to the NRA information about offshore wave height. One of our fundamental recommendations is that both those pieces of information should be conveyed to the maritime authorities—at the moment, only one piece of information is conveyed. None the less, the Operation Neptune warning was delivered at 08.53 to Colwyn borough council, but its senior officers knew nothing about it. That deplorable situation must not be permitted to recur.
    We recommend that the NRA should be made responsible for conveying information on tidal surges and wave heights to the maritime district authorities. Engineers from those authorities and other bodies responsible for major sea defences should be on standby to receive that information. I am sure that that answers the Minister's question. When the hon. Gentleman responds to our recommendations, I hope that he can say that those steps will be taken to meet the problem.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: May I clarify that I was seeking to elicit whether there is some doubt about the accuracy and reliability of Neptune warnings?
    Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to the Minister for that information, because the evidence that we subsequently received from the Meteorological Office showed that the prediction made in the Neptune warning on the morning of 26 February was surprisingly accurate. I am sure that that fundamentally important point will help the Minister.
    It is also disconcerting that the information on tide surges and offshore wave heights was available at 02.30 to the Meteorological Office. The Meteorological Office originally told us that it conveyed that information to the NRA at 02.30, but subsequently it changed its evidence and said that that information was passed on at 03.40—the office of the NRA was not open until 06.00 Because of those delays, as well as delay on the part of the north Wales police, the Operation Neptune warning did not arrive at Colwyn borough council until 08.53—six hours and 23 minutes after the computer prediction was available at the Meteorological Office.
    Another vital recommendation of the Committee is that an evacuation standby warning should be given by local authorities in vulnerable areas when a Neptune warning of extremely severe conditions is given. To achieve that, it is obvious that the delays that occurred in the transmission of information to Colwyn borough council must be eliminated.
    I have chosen to concentrate on the Operation Neptune warning system, but there are two other crucial recommendations. The first is that the Welsh Office should re-issue the advice to local authorities in circular 15/82 entitled "Development in Flood Risk Areas—Liaison between Planning Authorities and Water Authorities". Paragraph 7 of that circular needs particular emphasis:
    "Land which is protected from inundation by the sea would be extremely vulnerable in the event of any

    191
    embankment or sea wall being breached. For example, tidal surges might involve the loss of life as well as the destruction of property. Planning authorities are therefore asked to bear this point particularly in mind when considering development for land protected in this way."
    The Welsh Office will bear a heavy responsibility if it approves structure plans without satisfying itself that maritime local authorities' local plans satisfy the conditions of circular 15/82. I sincerely hope that the Minister will look again at that circular, re-issue it and bear in mind the responsibility that his Department bears when it approves county structure plans.
    The second crucial recommendation concerns insurance. It is often the case that people on low incomes naturally neglect to update their insurance policies to ensure that they are completely covered for the impact of flooding on the contents or structure of their property. In that regard, the Select Committee recommends, in its report published today, that local authorities should warn residents in areas at risk from flooding of the need to be fully insured by writing to every resident. That policy should be backed up by regular newspaper advertisements. We also recommend that local searches show solicitors which areas are liable to flooding.
    The Select Committee's inquiry into the events of 26 and 27 February left hon. Members in no doubt that, if the British Rail sea wall at Towyn had been breached around midnight on 26 February instead of around midday, lives would have been lost because of the vulnerability of the large numbers of elderly people living in that area. The Select Committee is conscious of the fact that, if present climatic trends continue, the likely problems and danger of flooding of the coast will become greater in future. That is the view of Hydraulic Research Ltd. contained in its memorandum to the Committee.
    If the Select Committee's recommendations are accepted by the Government, I am sure that far greater protection will be available against inundation by the sea through the construction of hard and soft defences. We recommend that the current bias in the grant system towards hard defences should be remedied.
    The Select Committee has excelled itself in its probing short inquiry. I must thank Professor O'Connor from Liverpool university for his expert advice, and it is my pleasure to acknowledge the work of the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. David Harrison, and his assistant, Mr. McShane, and Emma, who did the typing at the last minute under great stress. I also wish to pay tribute to the energetic and enthusiastic way in which fellow members of the Committee delved and probed into this difficult subject matter.
    I hope that the result of our deliberations will comfort people who live in north Wales and in other coastal areas as they face the next winter. I pay a special tribute to the senior Conservative Member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Clwyd North-West, who, throughout a most difficult time, clearly demonstrated his deep care for his constituents. The hon. Gentleman clearly deserves his place in the House—unless, of course, a Labour candidate eases him gently out at the next election. I am grateful to him for his support on the Committee and for the work that he and all members of the Committee have carried out.
    4.25 pm
    Sir Anthony Meyer: The tribute by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) was quite the nicest kiss of death ever bestowed on me. Apart from the Select Committee's specific recommendations, to which I shall refer later, the debate will focus much needed light on the still woeful plight of nearly 1,000 of my constituents who, six months after the February floods, are unable to return to their badly damaged homes and are living in caravans in their small front gardens or on the road outside. It is no joke looking after small children, elderly infirm relatives or, in some cases, mentally handicapped relatives in a caravan for months on end. lt may even be worse for those who are lodged in old people's homes, separated from friends, neighbours and memories.
    The debate will serve to remind the nation and the media how tardy, patchy and short-lived has been their generosity to these unhappy people. They still need help and desperately need to feel that the rest of the country—not just the people of Wales, who have responded magnificently—are aware of and sympathetic to their plight. Here I record my special gratitude to the National Federation of Pensioners Associations, which at its conference passed a resolution expressing support for the people of Towyn and Kinmel bay.
    The scope of the report is necessarily limited. We did not have time to cover anything other than sea defences and early-warning issues. We were not able to look into the severe problems faced by farmers, many of whom have lost much stock and whose land is taking a long time to recover from the effects of prolonged soaking by sea water.
    I pay special tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), then Secretary of State for Wales, who responded swiftly with lavish supplies of gypsum. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, who immediately visited the affected areas. Above all, I pay what may seem a slightly incestuous tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the hon. Member for Gower. It is a fairly open secret that he commands the confidence of every member who served on the Committee and those who previously served on it. He and all members of the Committee took endless trouble over the report. I thank them for that, and for meeting and listening to people while they were in north Wales seeing the problems for themselves. I know how affected they were by the continuing distress that surrounded them.
    I hope that the report and the debate will restore confidence to my constituents and to all who may face a similar threat. The debate has implications for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just for west-facing coasts. The lessons of the tragedy have been drawn and everything possible will be done to ensure that residents are safe from flooding next winter and for the foreseeable future. If unforeseeable conditions should occur, residents will be given ample warning and there will be provision for escape from death or injury, in their own homes by way of access to an upper floor or, at the very least, roof space, in bungalows—and proper escape and access routes for rescue vehicles will be made available and kept clear.
    I am particularly pleased with the recommendation that expenditure by local authorities on the maintenance of sea defences including the vital and continuing replenishment of sloping beaches—should attract Government

    193
    grant in exactly the same way as, at present, only capital works such as concrete sea walls do. That lesson holds good for the rest of the United Kingdom.
    The top priority must be the repair and strengthening of the sea wall. Those who live in the threatened areas must have a categorical assurance that, by next October, the wall and the beach will be able to absorb a storm as violent as that of last February. Such a storm may be a 1:200 year risk. However, as Dr. Robert Kay of the university of East Anglia said in a seminar staged by Clwyd county council, one can say that the odds against it are 1:200, but that is the same as saying that the odds are 200:1 against it happening again next year—horses have won the Grand National on odds only a little shorter than that.
    Despite the urgent need to rebuild and strengthen the sea wall, I do not understand why British Rail needs to close off the entire beach along the Towyn area for the whole period of the work. I accept that access to the beach will have to be severely restricted, but it must be possible for British Rail to schedule the work so that some parts can remain open to the public at certain times. Otherwise, it will inflict a crippling blow on the area's hard-hit and struggling tourist industry.
    In the course of giving evidence, I asked British Rail about access to the beach. In answer to question 202, Mr. Elliott replied:
    "We would need to liaise with the local authority in providing some form of access."
    I asked:
    "It will be your responsibility?"
    Mr. Rayner replied:
    "Let me say, Sir, if it is not it will be."
    If British Rail does not ensure that there is, at least at times, access to the beach for the holiday makers of Towyn, it will cause severe injury to an industry on which a great deal of British Rail's prosperity depends. I ask Mr. Robert Reid to think again about that.
    The report has rightly exposed shortcomings, especially in relation to warnings. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gower, was severe in his criticism of officials at Colwyn council. I do not want to say too much about Colwyn's failure to react to the Neptune warning. It is unfortunate that the council changed its story, and clearly there was a muddle, but I have not had time to hold the sort of informal discussion that I would normally have had with the Chairman before this debate. It has been an incredible rush, and it is amazing that the report has come out on time.
    In fairness to Colwyn, I would not have been quite so specific as the hon. Member for Gower in picking out Mr. Gough for so much blame. It is arguable that the six-hour delay of the National Rivers Authority was as much a contributory factor as Colwyn's slip-up. That begs the question whether, even if the early warning had been received and acted upon throughout, it would have done that much to avert the tragedy, which was caused not by the over-topping but by the collapse of the wall. We may argue about whether that collapse could have been foreseen, but in my heart I do not believe that it could.
    It occured at a point a long way away from where there had been a previous crack, but perhaps I am being unduly complacent. I hope that the media will not fasten exclusively or excessively on that aspect, or indulge in a
    194
    hunt for scapegoats. Above all, the people of the area need to recover their self-confidence and to rebuild their shattered lives. That means that we must all work together.
    I am aware that there have been cowboy builders, but some of the builders whom I have met have been working all the hours that God sends, at nominal levels of profit, out of a sense of commitment to the community in which they live. I cannot find sufficiently high words of praise for the activities of some of the housing associations in the area, which have provided a rescue and advice service for people whose homes were badly affected.
    I know that there have been complaints about some of the insurance companies and, perhaps more pertinently, the activities of certain loss adjusters who have been less than prompt in meeting claims. I pay tribute to the Association of British Insurers, which responded instantly to the Select Committee's suggestion that it should provide a once-a-week presence at the community centre in Towyn, where the voluntary and statutory relief agencies provide a devoted service all day every day and where the Select Committee held its hearings.
    I know that there are some hard and bitter feelings about the distribution of the pitifully small appeal fund among those who have lost so much. I only wish that it were possible to compensate, in some measure, everyone who has suffered, but a fund as small as that must be used for the relief of those who have lost most and who have the least chance of recovery from statutory agencies or insurance companies. Those who seek to stir up grievances render poor service to the community in which they live.
    Knowing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales as well as I do, I know that he will respond positively and generously, as far as he can, to the recommendations of the Select Committee. He has already shown his concern by his two lengthy visits to the affected areas—one of which took place even before he became Secretary of State—and by his manifest sympathy for all those he met. I am sure that he will give the most careful consideration to our recommendations. In particular, I hope that he will urge the Treasury to think again about the whole system of grant for repair and maintenance work. I hope that, in consultation with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, he will reconsider both the planning guidelines and the building regulations in areas liable to flooding by sea or from land.
    I thank my fellow members of the Select Committee, especially the Chairman, for the immense trouble that they have taken over this matter, which is of such desperate importance to my constituency.
    4.37 pm
    Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who made a typically gracious speech. He had his priorities right, and it was shrewd of him to put the pressure on British Rail.
    The report of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and his Select Committee has done a public service. It is probably the most important report published by the Select Committee. It is about life and about death. Its findings relate not only to all of Wales, but to all of Britain. It is both a wise and a practical report. The Welsh Office should now go to action stations and respond speedily to it. It is a blueprint for a responsible response from the Government.

    195
    I cannot forget that we are discussing a disaster. We all want to ensure that no other part of Wales suffers the same. The Committee was right to concentrate on the warnings about high sea levels, the condition of the sea defences, the responsibility for the sea defences and the planning policy for areas liable to flooding. It is an agenda for the Government, and I urge them to respond as speedily and as seriously as possible.
    As regards aims, I hope that we can build on a consensual response to the disaster, and agree upon a policy that can limit risks and protect our people.
    Paragraph 15 of the report contains the following chilling sentence:
    "Once the breach occurred then the speed of incursion into the Towyn area was such that very little warning could be given in advance to residents."
    Another chilling sentence, in paragraph 8, states:
    "However, residents were at risk and children, especially, suffered psychological trauma. People struggled to escape from their bungalows by the window as the water levels rose."
    That, perhaps unintentionally, hints at a drama by Hitchcock.
    Having been to the scene of the disaster, I found the report very accurate. My quotations from it sum up the fear and trauma experienced by those who suffered.
    I pay tribute to the police, firemen, council workmen, ambulance men and women and volunteers who did a huge amount of work on the day of the disaster to help and comfort people who were frightened.
    To put our debate into context, it is good that the Select Committee made such a practical response, based upon its visit to the scene of the disaster. It was shrewd of the Secretary of State for Wales to visit the area as soon as he could, as it was shrewd of the previous Secretary of State to visit the scene of the disaster. Thanks have been given to the Minister of State for going as soon as any Minister might have done.
    I acknowledge the importance of the fact that the Government have improved the Bellwin rules threshold and their cash contribution to the disaster fund. I do not leave out of my tribute the mayors, voluntary organisations in Clwyd and show business stars who have made great efforts to help the people stricken by the disaster.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Gentleman mentioned show business people. Perhaps he will support my plea to the national media that they should have given nationwide coverage to the appeals instead of broadcasting them in Wales only. The people of Wales have given generously, but the appeals have never been nationally networked.
    Mr. Jones: I take my cue from the hon. Gentleman. It was sad that the appeal was not broadcast outside Wales, as I am sure that hearts would have been touched and that the response would have been generous. Indeed, one of the reasons for this debate is to prompt the conscience of the nation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went to the scene without a political mission, aiming to help in the way that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, has instanced. The hon. Gentleman's work as a Member of Parliament has been exemplary throughout the disaster. He has approached a difficult problem with compassion and consientiousness, he has been consistent and his constituents would wish to thank him.
    When my right hon. Friend, Mrs. Kinnock and I visited the scene of the flooding, we were greatly moved. My right hon. Friend instantly resolved to meet the Secretary of
    196
    State for Wales at the Welsh Office, as he was so appalled at the remaining evidence of the disaster and its cruel impact on local people. He admired their courage and humour.
    My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, like the Secretary of State, received a deputation of people affected by the disaster, when they came to lobby Parliament. Hon. Members who visited the north Wales coast saw the strain and worry, which was all too evident, on the faces of the people whom we met—but I also acknowledge their endurance and dignity.
    I have made several visits to the scene of the disaster. I, too, recollect the report by the foster parents of two handicapped children, which was given to me, with my right hon. Friend and Mrs. Kinnock, in a caravan adjacent to a home ruined by the flooding. It had been lovingly enlarged and furnished to care for handicapped children, which is what that humane man and his wife have dedicated their lives to.
    Other people told us about the speed of the inundation and of their terror at seeing the sea advance to their homes in broad daylight. Incredibly, the sea swept far inland, blighting local farmers' pasture. The farming community now has a major problem.
    I visited a school where youngsters had to stand on their desks on the day of the disaster, and a small council estate far inland that had been flooded to a height of more than 4 ft. It had only recently been built, but was inundated by the cruel sea and partially ruined.
    On a later visit, I saw a superb seafront leisure centre, part of which had been smashed to pieces. The ballroom was unrecognisable as the room that I had visited in November last year.
    The impact of global warming is difficult to predict, as nobody will deny, but some of the beauty spots along the Welsh coast may fall victim to rising sea levels during the next few decades. Storms and thunderstorms could become more frequent and the hazard of flooding will increase in the valleys of the Rivers Dyfi, Dee, Clwyd, Towy and Wye. What about Borth and Newborough in Anglesey? What assessments have the Ministers made?
    In a written answer on 24 April, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central
    (Mr. Grist), told my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells):
    "All coastal regions that lie below the highest sea level in their vicinity are at some risk of being inundated by sea water in the event of breaches of sea defences. The most significant such areas in Wales are parts of the north Wales coast, the Caldicot and Wentlooge levels and lands bordering the major estuaries, for example, Afon Glaslyn, Afon Mawddach, Afon Dyfi and Lougher inlet."—[Official Report, 24 April 1990; Vol. 171, c. 142.]
    One cannot be franker than that, and it was a fair response to a serious question.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I assured him that the National Rivers Authority has already embarked upon a full survey of coastal defences in Wales.
    Mr. Jones: I look foward to an expanded reply on that matter from the Minister of State—he knows that it is his duty.
    We know that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is increasing its expenditure over the next three years. The east coast must be a priority. I expect to hear

    197
    the Minister of State tell us that his Department has obtained a large enough budget to meet Wales's need for sea defences.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) asked a question, because on the same day of the terrible floods at Towyn there was serious flooding in his constituency at Peterstone and St. Bride's, where the sea overtopped the sea wall, and at Caerleon and Newport. He asked the Minister:
    "In view of the certainty of global warming raising sea levels, and because the area has many fine homes and new high technology enterprises, will he guarantee that in the future the area will be fully protected by new flood defences?"—[Official Report, 18 June 1990: Vol. 174, c. 671.]
    I mention that question because sea defences concern the whole of Wales; the problem is not confined to the coast of Clwyd, which received such a fearful battering in February.
    What research will the Welsh office sponsor to assess the implications of global warming on storm frequency and flood risk along the Welsh coast? What will be the impact on Liverpool bay of global warming and an increase in sea level? The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West touched on housing, and I shall mention it briefly too. The Daily Post—once the Liverpool Daily Post—reported on 7 July that between 800 and 1,300 flood victims were still unable to return to their homes six months after the disaster. The report estimated that more than 200 people are living in caravans and mobile homes next to their properties. Others are living in guest houses and hotels.
    Will the Minister of State study the decision of the DSS not to give community care grants to pensioners and families with children who do not get income support? 1 hat means test, in a unique disaster, penalises those who have been thrifty; I say without too much venom that it penalises the very people whom the Government say they want to encourage. The needs of the victims are still immense, and loans will not help them.
    Will the Minister of State provide one-off central Government funding for a social work team? The professionals believe that such a team will be needed for a long time. There are people with mental health problems over and above the typical strain and stress. It is a truism to say of this disaster that families are under stress. These families have children in their midst, and the social workers of Clwyd county are doing a good job in the wake of disaster, but they have been taken away from other important work in the county.
    I also want the Government to extend the time limit on the Bellwin rules, perhaps even into next year, as has been urged by Clwyd county. The Government's rejection of central Government funding for a social work team has caused great anxiety.
    I want to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower about the storm tidal warning service. The estimates include an allowance of £339,000 for that service in the financial year 1990–91. The estimates also mention the costs of tide gauges for the east and west coasts. They mention capital expenditure on them of £42,500. In paragraph 24, the Select Committee recommends an additional tide gauge for the coast of north Wales. Does the £42,500 cover the cost of an additional tide gauge, or how much would one cost? There
    198
    is no tide gauge between Holyhead and Hilbre on the estuary of the River Dee. We need one urgently, and we await an outright commitment—today—from the Minister that a gauge will be provided and installed as soon as possible. The lack of a gauge between Holyhead and the mouth of the Dee is a glaring omission, a weakness that must be rectified, and I call on the Minister of State to guarantee—
    Sir Wyn Roberts: May I relieve the hon. Gentleman by assuring him that we are giving active consideration to the provision of a tide gauge for the north Wales coast?
    Mr. Jones: I shall take that as an absolute guarantee that a gauge will be put in at the earliest opportunity. I also take it that the money will be provided; before the end of the debate. I want the Minister of State to tell me precisely how much such a gauge costs and whether the figure relates to the £42,500 in the estimates. If it does not, the Government have been lazy since February.
    It is now the Government's duty to proclaim a strategy, backed by research, expertise and funding, on sea defences. Wales has a major interest in the Government tackling that growing problem. The Government must be determined and imaginative. How great is the danger? What decisions will be taken to defend and protect our people and our shoreline? How soon will those decisions be implemented? The Minister owes us an outline of his policy, especially on the north Wales floods.
    It would appear in the end that even these Ministers did not acknowledge soon enough that a disaster of serious proportions had taken place. All of us thank God that it happened in broad daylight, but after six months much remains to be done and the pace must be quickened. Ministers must get a grip on matters and show more leadership. They must reassure public opinion. If they do not show leadership and determination I am sorry to tell the Minister of State that the suffering and fear of those who were flooded will have been in vain.
    4.58 pm
    Mr. Keith Raffan: It is sad that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) concluded with party political points, which were too petty for a debate such as this on a serious disaster. I hope to make points which are above the party political level, like the admirable speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) -I may call him that in this context, since he is the Chairman of the Select Committee—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer).
    I am delighted that we are holding this debate on the breach of the sea defences on 26 and 27 February along the north Wales coast. As I said in yesterday's debate, initiated by Plaid Cymru, we hold far too few debates on Welsh affairs on the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] I had the courtesy to listen in silence to the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). As he is so concerned about this disaster—his concern came through in his speech—I hope that he will be courteous enough to listen to my speech without trying to interrupt me or causing distractions by muttering from a sedentary position.
    Far too few debates are held on the Floor of the House on Welsh affairs. The Government's responses to the Welsh Select Committee's reports are seldom debated.

    199
    That is sad. I agree with the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee, that, as a matter of form, the Welsh Grand Committee should debate regularly the reports produced by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. That would save us having to go round the same old circuit discussing the same old issues—the Government choosing the subject on one occasion, the Opposition choosing it the next—with nobody showing any imagination about what to debate.
    There is a backlog of reports prepared by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that the Welsh Grand Committee could debate and discuss. I hope that both the Minister of State and the usual channels will take that point on board. I have been accused, even by members of my own party, of being too much of a Welsh Member of Parliament. I regard that not as a criticism but as a label which I wear with pride. I hope that all of us together, above party politics, will press for more debates on Welsh issues—on the Floor of the House and in the Welsh Grand Committee.
    The question that dominated the inquiry by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and that is dominating this debate was posed to us, as Members of the Select Committee, by the people of Towyn and Ffynnongroyw when we visited those places before taking evidence at Towyn: "How can our communities return to normal life until we are sure, until we are certain that we are safe and secure behind our sea walls?" I hope that the House will bear with me if I make a few points that relate directly to my constituency before I deal with the Select Committee's report.
    I am delighted by the assurance that I received today from British Rail that, contrary to rumour, it is to replace the sea wall at Mostyn West, otherwise known as Ffynnongroyw, before the onset of winter. The contract has been let. Work is to start next week and will be completed by the end of September. That will greatly assure the 45 or so families in Ffynnongroyw who were so severely affected by the floods of 26 and 27 February.
    I ask the Welsh Office, through its consultant, Hydraulics Research Ltd., to look closely at the design of the new sea wall that British Rail has produced. It is important that the people of Ffynnongroyw should be given every possible assurance. We should therefore have a second opinion on the design.
    I also ask the Welsh Office and its consultant, Hydraulics Research Ltd., to look at the Holywell embankment. It was reinstated promptly—I pay tribute to British Rail for that—after the February floods with 25,000 tonnes of demolition material of rock and armour stone, which raised the height of the embankment by about 1 m.
    However, as our specialist adviser pointed out to me and to the other Members of the Select Committee when we visited the embankment, there is a danger of the sea entering the gaps between the loose rock and sucking out sand and shingle, which could result in subsidence. Therefore, he suggested—as I did, when we took evidence from British Rail at Towyn—that there should be a filter layer under the wall. British Rail has said in a letter that it is still reviewing the need for a filter layer. Therefore, it would be helpful once again to have a second opinion from Hydraulics Research Ltd.
    Under the Coast Protection Act 1949, certain bodies, including British Rail, are exempt from having to obtain consent for sea defence works. All exemptions should
    200
    come to an end; I see no reason for them. It is important that British Rail should have to obtain consent for its sea defence works from the coastal protection authority.
    The contrast between British Rail's approach and that of the coastal protection authorities is starkly highlighted in my constituency. In the borough of Delyn, the Ffynnongroyw embankment, otherwise known as Mostyn West, is owned by British Rail. It was constructed in 1830 and modified in 1845 and 1920. The Mostyn dock wall was constructed in 1830. The Mostyn embankment was constructed in 1840 and modified in 1920. The Holywell embankment was constructed in 1830. All these sea walls and embankments are also owned by British Rail.
    In Rhuddlan, where the local district council is the owner of and therefore responsible for, all sea defences, a totally different situation prevails. Since 1983, £4.5 million has been spent on coast protection. There have been three schemes—phases 1 and 2 at Ffrith beach and phase 3 at central beach. During the next three years, a further £5.6 million will be spent. That illustrates the marked contrast between a maritime district authority—a coastal protection authority—that is directly responsible for its own sea defences—and British Rail, which is a step removed from sea defences, with its headquarters in the south. It is not so fully aware at first hand of the need for sea defences to be modified and renewed regularly.
    The Welsh Office has made Rhuddlan borough council's expenditure possible by means of a generous special capital allocation. I pay tribute to the Welsh Office. As Mr. Andrew Rhodes, the former borough surveyor of Rhuddlan, pointed out when he gave evidence to us at Towyn, at one stage a third of all the special capital allocation to Welsh district councils was going to Rhuddlan borough council for its sea defence work. The remaining work needs to be accelerated and completed as soon as possible, thus ensuring that the people of Prestatyn are safe and secure behind their sea defences.
    I hope that the Welsh Office will allow the remaining three-year programme to be compressed into two years. Andrew Rhodes, who has just moved from Rhuddlan to the Wirral, believes it to be practicable. I hope that the Minister of State will respond to that point—if not in his reply to the debate then in a letter to me.
    I also press the Welsh Office for help in the reconstruction of the Nova complex in Prestatyn. It was devastated by the storms. Rhuddlan borough council is not asking for cash but for permission to spend. It is asking for a capital allocation for excess costs over insurance coverage. The Minister of State will be only too well aware that the Nova complex is central to Prestatyn's economy and its principal industry, tourism. Rhuddlan borough council is in a catch-22 situation. For the complex to be reinsured, it must be redesigned on the seaward side. Insurance will cover only rebuilding, like for like. It will cover replacement, not betterment. Essential design changes will cost at least £200,000 if the external walls are to be rebuilt in reinforced concrete rather than brick.
    The council cannot and should not be asked to accommodate that expenditure within its existing capital programme. That would require a reordering of its priorities. I hope that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for Wales will look again sympathetically at that matter. I was slightly disappointed by the letter that I received from the Secretary of State on this issue. I realise that, at £200,000, the cost of betterment works would fall well below the cost threshold for special projects

    201
    and would therefore not be eligible for support through the top slice arrangements. I hope that the Welsh Office will make an exemption in this case, so that the council does not have to reorder its priorities, which would result in the people of Rhuddlan and Prestatyn losing out on their capital programme.
    Now turning to the Select Committee's report, I urge the Government to introduce in the next Session of Parliament a sea defences Bill. That is what we need. As they approach general elections, I know that Governments like to look for non-contentious issues that will command support on all sides of the House so that those who are interested in a particular issue can come to the House, while those who are not can nurse their constituencies and campaign in them.
    Dr. Darydd Elis Thomas: And lose.
    Mr. Raffan: I hope that the Plaid Cymru Members will help me once again, as they did in the previous two general elections, by putting up a candidate in my constituency, so ensuring my victory. But I can assure them that, if a sea defences Bill is brought before the House, I shall be regular in my attendance and would hope to be on the Standing Committee examining it clause by clause and line by line. The Government should seriously consider introducing a sea defences Bill. It should have three objectives.
    First, it should consolidate in one piece of legislation the multiplicity of Acts concerning coastal protection and coastal defences. It should consolidate and rationalise the Coast Protection Act 1949, the Land Drainage Act 1976, the Water Act 1989 and nine other minor Acts which relate to sea defences. Secondly, it should designate a single authority, which our report suggests should be the National Rivers Authority, to co-ordinate and, if necessary, enforce responsibilities relating to coastal protection and flood prevention. It was quite clear during the February floods that co-ordination was not satisfactory. There is an overwhelming need for one authority to assume overall control and responsibility for our sea defences.
    I am sorry that Andrew Rhodes, the former borough surveyor of Rhuddlan, has departed to the Wirral, as he is an extremely good borough surveyor and is also extremely quotable. He said in his evidence to us at Towyn:
    "The forces of nature do not recognise individual borough boundaries."
    I accept that the maritime district authorities as the coastal protection authorities have the essential local knowledge and that improvements may have to be funded in part locally. I do not want to deprive them of their powers but to ensure that they use them. I am advocating not centralisation, but effective supervision.
    The Select Committee considers the National Rivers Authority to be the natural co-ordinating enforcement body. The Water Act 1989 requires the NRA
    "to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence."
    The NRA has already declared its intention to exercise those powers with regard to all sea defences. It has already approached some maritime district authorities and British Rail. If it took on that role, the NRA would have a
    202
    massive task and it must be adequately funded. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will take that on board.
    The Coastal Engineering Research Advisory Committee reckons that there are more than 240 separate authorities in the United Kingdom responsible for coast protection, sea defences and port and harbour works. In Wales alone, there are 22 maritime district authorities or coast protection authorities with the power to serve notice on the owners of sea defences to maintain and repair sea defence works.
    I see the NRA as a co-ordinating enforcement authority with the following responsibilities: first, drawing up and ensuring the implementation of national strategies; secondly, overall supervision of the Operation Neptune warning system; thirdly, co-ordination and dissemination of coastal engineering research; fourthly, laying down standards of design for sea defences, as CERAC says, to
    "minimise the adverse effects so evident today as a result of the hotch-potch of design and protection methods along the coast."
    Fifthly, the NRA should ensure that coastal protection authority inspections of sea defences are carried out regularly and effectively.
    During the evidence session at Towyn, I asked British Rail how regularly its sea defences were monitored by the CPAs and whether monitoring varied from one CPA to another, British Rail responded that it was not aware of monitoring. When I asked whether British Rail regularly met individual coastal protection authorities, the representative of British Rail responded, "Not to my understanding." That is totally unsatisfactory. There must be regular and effective liaison between CPAs and British Rail and other owners of sea defences, and that must be enforced by the NRA as the co-ordinating and enforcement body. Finally, the NRA should have the authority to ensure that CPAs used their powers where necessary to direct the owners of sea defences to upgrade and repair them.
    Let me summarise the second important point, that one authority must assume overall control and responsibility for our sea defences. The current Welsh Office approach is far too laid back. It is not enough for the Welsh Office to say:
    "There is nothing in the present arrangements to prevent local interests grouping together to ensure that the wider interests of their coast are taken into account".
    That is too lackadaisical.
    Dr. Thomas: I support the hon. Gentleman and suggest that he might like to ask the Minister of State a direct question about the Government's likely response to the NRA survey. It is one thing to talk about the NRA survey, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said so eloquently, those of us who have visited Towyn are aware of the residual fears about the future. We must be assured that the survey on sea defences will result in action and funding to ensure that all areas that might be susceptible to the inundation that occurred at Towyn will be defended.
    Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will have heard the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he will respond to that point.
    I reiterate that the present arrangements are far too informal. The informal gatherings of officers and agencies on a coastal cell basis are quite inadequate. We understand from their evidence to us at Towyn that they meet informally only twice a year. Co-ordination must be

    203
    formalised, and we look to the Welsh Office to do that now. There should be no more delay. If there are further storms and inundations of our sea defences and ineffective co-ordination, we shall hold the Welsh Office responsible. It must act promptly and effectively.
    I know that it is rather late in the session to start talking about a new Bill in the next one, but if the Government do not introduce a sea defences Bill, we expect them to act by order and to provide guidance circulars through the Welsh Office.
    The third part of a sea defences Bill should involve a revision of the grant system. Currently, grant aid is available for capital work, but not for maintenance renewal and replenishment works. The system now in operation militates in favour of hard defences, which require little maintenance or renewal, and against the extension of soft defences, which require constant maintenance and renewal. For example, when the sea has washed shingle and sand to one end of the beach, lorries have to be brought in to truck that sand and shingle back to the other end of the beach, but that is not eligible for grant aid.
    To a large extent, hard defences have been discredited. In Prestatyn in my constituency, millions of pounds were spent in the 1930s and 1940s on replacing sand dunes, nature's defences, with hard concrete walls. Unlike the dunes, the hard defences reflect waves; they do not absorb them. As a result, the beach level dropped dramatically and the waves took the beach away with them and undermined the walls. Now, in the 1980s and 1990s, millions of pounds are being spent on replacing the hard defences with soft defences. It would have been better had we never tampered with nature. Those soft defences will absorb waves rather than reflect them, so we hope that the beach levels will rise and be restored.
    The Chairman of the Select Committee opened the evidence session at Towyn with a Chinese proverb, and if he will allow me, I shall quote it today:
    "Nothing under heaven is softer or more yielding than water, but when it attacks things hard and resistant not one of them can prevail."
    We cannot master nature and we cannot master the sea with concrete and stone. We can defeat it only by emulating nature and mirroring the effect of sand dunes.
    Britain has been much slower than other maritime countries to construct soft defences and to employ nature's methods to keep the sea at bay. The Dutch regularly create sand dunes 200 m deep in front of clay-earth embankments. We must change our financing rules so as not to discourage soft defences. That would also—this will appeal to the Treasury Bench—make the Government's money go further.
    The cost of sea defences is considerable. In capital terms, hard defences are much more expensive than soft defences. Prestatyn has spent £4.5 million and will spend a further £5.6 million in the next three years on soft defences; restoring existing hard defences would have cost infinitely more. The inquiry was told that British Rail will spend £6 million on replacing sea walls at Mostyn and Towyn.
    The cost of sea defences will rise quite dramatically in forthcoming years and the Government must allow for that. The initial capital outlay on soft defences will be less than for hard defences, and I believe that it is a far better investment to protect our coastline.
    204
    My constituency was not so severely affected as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West. I worked out that 2,800 properties were flooded to some extent in and around Towyn, and a further 98 in Rhyl. A total of about 80 properties were affected in Ffynnongroyw, Prestatyn and Bagillt in my constituency.
    It is not however, a question of the quantity of properties that were invaded by the sea, because the human suffering to each family, and the scale of it, is the same. I visited Ffynnongroyw, Bagillt and Prestatyn in the immediate aftermath of the floods and could see the damage that the sea had wreaked, not just to property but to people's morale and mental state. There is a responsibility on people to ensure that their properties and their contents are insured, but equally there is a responsibility on Government and their agencies to ensure that these events are not repeated.
    We look to the Welsh Office for a positive and prompt response to the report. We do not want weeks and months to pass. The Select Committee worked very hard to publish the report today, and we want a response from the Government quickly and promptly—not after the summer recess but before it. I accept that the Minister of State will have had little time to read the report before today's debate, but I hope that he will press on our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has shown his deep concern and caring, which is shared in all parts of the House, the fact that we look to him, if at all possible, for a statement before the House rises for the summer recess so that we can further cross-examine the Government on the positive, constructive measures that they propose in response to this very good report that the Chairman of the Select Committee and its other members have produced.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I intend to comment on the report that was published today, but I do not think that my hon. Friend will necessarily regard that as a definitive Government response; he will have to wait at least some days for that.
    Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend took the words out of my mouth. In my usual generous way, I said that we do not expect a definitive response today, but it is not too much for us to ask at least for a partial statement on the Government's proposals before the House rises for the summer recess.
    I know that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West are concerned. My constituents in Ffynnongroyw are concerned and are holding a further meeting next week because of unfounded rumours that British Rail are not to carry out work to replace the sea wall at Ffynnongroyw by September. Their concern is evident and we look to Ministers to respond directly.
    I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to all those involved in ensuring that this disaster did not become a tragedy with loss of life. All the emergency services—the ambulance, fire and police services—deserve our thanks and gratitude for all that they did.
    I join my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Gower, who has done a service not just to the House and to its reputation in this constructive debate but to our constituents by allowing the Select Committee to proceed with the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West and I made for an inquiry into sea

    205
    defences in North Wales to be carried out promptly, efficiently and effectively. That was, as he quite rightly said, made possible by the eminent specialist adviser whom we were able to engage to help us—Professor O'Connor—and by the Clerk and his assistants, David Harrison and Frank McShane. It has been an example of Parliament and the House at its best. I only wish the work of the Select Committee and its Chairman were emulated more frequently by fellow hon. Members.
    5.24 pm
    Mr. Richard Livsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) on an objective speech and the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), whose constituents suffered much as a result of what happened last February at Towyn.
    The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), gave a tremendous account of the Committee's work. The Committee was fortunate to have a geographer as its Chairman, because he was able to deal with many of the relevant points.
    Events at Towyn on 26 February were not easy to predict. They were caused by environmental changes such as global warming and changes in weather patterns, particularly those related to the greenhouse effect. We cannot predict exactly what will happen in the future, but the events of 26 February took many by surprise. We all remember the gales, which, alarmingly, occurred almost every week last February, in Wales and the rest of Britain. They blew down trees around my house that had been standing for many years.
    It is easy, with hindsight, to be critical about measures that should have been taken at that time but were not. Although such events cannot be prevented, their effects can at least be alleviated by proper use of the emergency procedures.
    The reason for the debate is the flooding of land, much of which was below sea level, in Towyn, Kinmel Bay, Rhyl and Ffynnongroyw on 26 February 1990. The devastation that occurred made a deep impression on me. I paid two visits to the area, and on my first visit in March I saw people who had been made homeless and pathetic skips of ruined possessions piled high in their backyards. Eight hundred people are still not back in their own homes, some of which were gutted to the brickwork, with floors removed as a result of damage to woodwork. It was a pathetic sight indeed.
    The fact that many of those people were not properly insured—it is estimated that 40 per cent. were not insured for personal possessions—is a commentary on the fact that they were pensioners who had little capital and could not insure adequately. That is covered in the report.
    The state of readiness of the emergency services is rightly addressed by the report. We need to remind ourselves that it was not only individuals and their properties that were affected. I came across one business that had lost £1 million-worth of assets in the flooding, which has had a serious effect on small businesses in the area, as well as on farms and farmland. The state of readiness could have been better. I am puzzled that references have been made time and again to the fact that this was a one-in-200-years occurrence. However, when we
    206
    look at the detail, we find that there were storms and flooding in 1975, again in 1983 and finally, the catastrophic floods in 1990. That suggests that there is a seven-year cycle. Weather changes and environmental changes must be having an effect.
    The role of the local authorities, of the National Rivers Authority, of the police and of other emergency services, such as the fire and ambulance services, should be tremendously praised. We may be critical about what happened, but there is no doubt that the fact that not one person lost his life at the time is a great credit to the emergency services. Sadly, as a result of trauma and shock, some infirm people passed away later.
    Clearly, the emergency procedures broke down in this case. The Chairman of the Select Committee has put his finger on some of the issues that need to be examined. I noted in the report—indeed, there was evidence of this—that at some point in the middle of the night, a fax machine in one of the police headquarters broke down. If that was the only line of communication, communications were inadequate. There should have been a double-check, fail-safe system in which there were dual warnings. The fact remains that it took six hours and 23 minutes for the information to get through to Colwyn borough council. As we know, matters that should have been dealt with were not dealt with at that time. In mitigation, we must say that these circumstances were exceptional and had not been experienced before. We can learn from them.
    The delays that occurred were dual. They occurred first, in the chain of command of the Neptune system and secondly through the Meteorological Office, the NRA, the police and in the local authorities themselves. Both aspects need to be put right.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is vital to emphasise that the North Wales police fax machine—to which he referred—which broke down should have relayed a message to the Delyn borough council area. It was not the same message that was being relayed to the Colwyn borough council area, which was received at 8.53 am on 26 February.
    Mr. Livsey: I accept, as the Chairman has said, that there may be a different system. That points to the need for consistency in communications.
    Can such a disaster happen again? That is the great fear of everyone in the area. The fact that high tides are due in October was on the lips of almost everyone whom I met in the area.
    This was a major disaster, but because people did not lose their lives, it has not been sufficiently acknowledged as such. The morale of the people is poor as a result of the past six months' delay in putting their houses right—much, but not all, of which is understandable. It is strange that the Prime Minister has not visited the victims of the disaster. I do not know the reasons for that as she has visited most other disaster organisations. Not long ago, I was handed a card that said, "Please do not visit me, Prime Minister, if I am involved in a disaster." I do not necessarily accept that, but it seems strange that she did not visit the site and the people involved.
    I am glad that British Rail has decided to spend £6 million on the repair to the sea wall. That is a good response and needs to be acknowledged.
    It is especially important to note that the report stresses that there should be only one co-ordinating body. The

    207
    report is right in its conclusion that the NRA should be that body. That single authority must have a clear duty to inform everyone in the emergency services that trouble is on the way. The only problem is that the NRA has only about £6 million a year for sea defences throughout the United Kingdom. That is an inadequate sum in view of the damage on this one occasion.
    Another important point in the report is the softer defences, which have been mentioned by several hon. Members. We need defences that run in with the environment and that will absorb the impact of the sea, which, as all hon. Members know, is a powerful force. The sting needs to be taken out the sea and hard defences are not necessarily the best devices for that.
    The maintenance grants recommended in the report are especially important. The problem is that vast sums are needed for maintenance. What will the Minister do about prioritising that money? What are the priority points in Wales where money should first be spent? Where are the problems greatest?
    If strategic plans allow houses to be built below sea level, planning must be carefully monitored. I spoke to the daughter of a former councillor in the Colwyn area. Her father had been a councillor in the 1950s and 1960s. She told me that at that time, planning permission was solidly refused in the area where houses have now been built. It is because of the overturn of a Welsh Office appeal that some of those houses have been allowed to be built. On visiting Towyn, I was also told that it was strange that it had taken until the middle of the 20th century for houses to be built in that area when the medieval Welsh had not built on those low-level sites. There are lessons to be learned there. The report contains the seeds of reform that will put people who are vulnerable to sea flooding in a far better position.
    The cost of the disaster has had an impact on local authorities. The Government have assisted local authorities by upping the Bellwin formula from 75 per cent. to 85 per cent. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of my party, received a letter from the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend visited the site about three weeks ago and saw the position for himself. He wrote to the Prime Minister on his return and she replied:
    "On current estimates `Bellwin' is expected to produce a Government contribution to the costs incurred by local authorities of almost £1½m".
    Towards the end of the letter, the Prime Minister said:
    "In total it is expected that the Government contribution to the cost of alleviating the problems caused by the flooding will be in the order of £4m and could well exceed that figure."
    My information, from discussions with the local authorities up there, and especially with Colwyn district council, is that the total cost might be £6 million. It looks as though there will be a shortfall of about £2 million in the costs incurred. It is implicit that local authorities will have to find 15 per cent. of the funding, given the 85 per cent. revised Bellwin formula. A lot of money is at stake for the local authorities, and it might result in increased poll tax charges—
    Sir Wyn Roberts: May I correct the hon. Gentleman by assuring him that the amount that will be met under the Bellwin formula is 95 per cent.?
    Mr. Livsey: I am pleased to hear that. I acknowledge that information.
    Finally, despite what the Minister has just said, there is a considerable shortfall of funding in many senses. I hope
    208
    that the Welsh Office will take it upon itself completely to make good any shortfall that the maritime local authorities in north Wales might face. They should not have to pick up the bill for these exceptional circumstances. I commend to the House the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I urge the Government to accept it rapidly and to act on it quickly.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. David Harris: Although the debate has been billed and trailed as concerned primarily with Wales, and especially with north Wales—that is quite right and proper—the documents on which it is based include the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimates on coastal protection, which cover England. I am grateful for this oppo'rtunity to participate in the debate and wish first to express sympathy to the residents of Towyn from fellow sufferers from flooding and sea damage in Cornwall. We were all moved by their dreadful experiences during that storm.
    It is sad that it requires a tragedy on that scale—one can think back 37 years to the tragedy that occurred in East Anglia—to remind us that the sea is always capable of causing damage, and to focus the attention of all of us on what needs to be done in such circumstances. I emphasise "all of us" because, like other hon. Members, I wish to refer later to the multiplicity of agencies and services, from the Government downwards, that are involved in coping with that problem when it occurs and—perhaps more importantly—in trying to prevent it.
    The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was absolutely right to point out that the rest of the country can learn from what happened in north Wales. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to the dangers of global warming. Frankly, I do not know whether global warming will present a serious problem. I suspect that it will, but I do not know, and, if we are honest, not one of us can say that we know. However, what I do know is that, at this very moment, cliffs are being eroded in my own constituency. Only last Friday, I visited a lady who had lost 12 ft of her front garden into the sea. She is desperately worried that. before too long, perhaps over a period of years—she does not know, I do not know, nobody knows—her bungalow could end up in the sea. That is the awfulness of this situation.
    Although the winter storms are now over, the fear that they caused remains. It remains for the lady I visited. Whenever the wind gets up and the sea rises, especially if the wind is blowing in a particular direction and there is a spring tide, she will be worried stiff. Exactly the same goes for people who happen to live near the sea in north Wales, East Anglia or elsewhere in Cornwall, part of which I represent. My constituency juts out into the Atlantic. There is sea on both sides. It takes the brunt of all the bad weather coming in from the Atlantic. So many parts of it are at risk right now.
    It is therefore of the utmost importance that the House, the Government and all the agencies involved should turn their attention to this problem. I am glad that they are doing so. Since the storm last winter, I have been involved in talks with a number of agencies. Only last Friday, Baroness Trumpington, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place, visited my constituency and saw things there for herself. She

    209
    could not believe what she saw or the damage that had been caused by the sea towering up to swamp houses. She visited Porthleven, pictures of which went around the world just before Christmas, showing the immense seas. I was there on the Sunday, and had never seen such seas before in my life. As I have said, people like the villagers and townspeople of Porthleven always feel that fear when the wind blows and the sea rises. That is the problem we face.
    My part-time hobby is walking the coastal path in my constituency. At place after place, I have seen areas of cliff—and communities—exposed. The village at Coverack was in danger of being cut in two. Thank goodness, steps have been taken in recent months to avoid that happening. All around the Lizard, areas are exposed. I have already mentioned Porthleven which took the brunt of the pre-Christmas storms. Again, at Praa Sands, whole areas have been undermined by the sea. It is the same story at Marazion, and Newlyn is also at risk. Floods poured in just before Christmas. At Mousehole, the harbour defences were badly battered and part of the car park disappeared. Around the other coast at Sennen, a road could now well be in danger. A whole area is exposed and would have suffered serious problems if the tide had been in a different direction.
    The scale of the problem is enormous. I have spoken only about my constituency, which is perhaps dramatically affected, but other constituencies in Cornwall face similar problems. As we have heard, parts of Wales, East Anglia and other areas of our coast line are at risk.
    What can be done about it? I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). I shall not embarrass my boss, the Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council, by saying that I think a sea defences Bill should be introduced in the next Session. As his parliamentary private secretary, it would not be for me to suggest such timing. However, I believe that the introduction of legislation to bring together all the miscellaneous bits of legislation is long overdue. We also need to try to clear up the hotch-potch of agencies and organisations involved in this matter. Perhaps we cannot do so entirely, but I echo what has already been said, that the National Rivers Authority is the right organisation to take the lead in this matter.
    At the moment, district councils have the prime responsibility for promoting coast protection schemes. I wonder how long that will continue, given the pressure on district councils, especially those that are hard-pressed because of the extent of the problem to which I have referred. The Government must reconsider the organisation and financing of coastal protection.
    Financing such protection is complex and complicated. I attended a seminar for councillors on this subject by the NRA and MAFF. One had to listen with great care to try to understand all the different layers of grants that might apply in different circumstances. As far as possible, we should simplify this whole procedure—the organisation, legislation and finance. It will not be easy, but I urge the Government to take an urgent look at the matter.
    I am delighted that our former colleague in the House, Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the NRA, has taken a lead on this issue. Speaking in Exeter in March this year,
    210
    following the winter storms, he announced the start of a major NRA survey of the sea defences around the coastline of England and Wales.
    That is a good start, but we must go further. In Cornwall, the NRA has taken a lead—I pay the authority tribute for its efforts—by calling the councils together. As a result of a meeting at county hall a few weeks ago, an advisory or co-ordinating committee will be established to bring the various organisations together. But we must go even further and introduce the type of legislation to which reference has been made.
    We had an excellent debate late at night last March initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) on the whole question of coastal defences. In concluding his remarks, he pressed on the Government the acronym "CRAC" which, he said, stood for coordination, research, action and cash. I echo those sentiments.
    I applaud those who have taken part in today's debate for their constructive remarks. I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee. Like other hon. Members, I urge the Government—I am sure that they are seized of the importance of the matter—to implement CRAC and to crack on with it.
    5.51 pm
    Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones: I represent an island constituency that has 125 miles of coastline. My constituents are well aware of the dangers and power of the sea. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will be aware that many in my constituency have suffered as a result of the power of the sea over the generations, and they will sympathise with the plight of the people of Towyn and Abergele following the storms last February. Indeed, one of my forebears was drowned at sea. That family tragedy came back to me forcibly when I visited the area with the Welsh Select Committee in May.
    The memory of that visit will stay with me for ever. I was struck by the desperate plight of the people, for it is a human tragedy when people are inundated with water, must leave their homes, and for weeks, perhaps months, are unable to return to them. Ask our constituents on a scale of values what they value most, and I imagine that they will say first their homes and communities. Those homes and communities were destroyed in the floods at Towyn, where I saw the tragedy on a vast scale.
    Another abiding memory is the desolation I saw at Towyn, with vast areas of land without any growth whatever. We saw a few tufts of grass, but for the most part the land was bare and totally desolate. We visited many streets of empty properties. I am talking of properties that were stripped of everything. They were no longer homes, just buildings with bricks stripped bare. There were no floorboards—nothing—just twisted pipes and desolation.
    We spoke to people who were suffering tremendous psychological problems as a result of the disaster. We spoke to counsellors who had expertise in providing assistance to people suffering that form of distress. I was impressed with the quality of the advice they gave under such difficult conditions. They had been trained in stress counselling, but I was disappointed that many of them had had to qualify as stress counsellors at their own expense.

    211
    No resources were available publicly to train stress counsellors in areas such as Towyn. We must look into that situation.
    During our visit I took the opportunity to walk about with a local councillor. I spoke to a number of people in their homes and they graphically described the events of the storm. I asked, "When did you first realise that the water was about to engulf you?" They replied, "We first saw it coming over the garden wall. Within six seconds we were up to our waists in water. Seconds later we saw our fridges, washing machines and tables and chairs floating by our heads. We were washed out of our homes. We had no opportunity to collect our belongings or even our thoughts." That was a graphic description of the power of the sea, and it left a deep impression on every member of the Select Committee who visited Towyn.
    I could not believe that there was not some system to warn them about the effect of the sea—that technology had not advanced to the stage when people could be warned that they would be inundated with water—and that is why I followed a certain line of questioning of officials of Colwyn borough council and other local authority officials at the community centre in Towyn. I felt that it was our duty as a Select Committee to find out why the people were not warned.
    I recall walking in Towyn along the wall that had been repaired by British Rail. I asked one of the locals, "Describe what happened when that wall breached." He replied, "I looked from my window, and it was almost as though somebody was drawing a curtain open when the wall collapsed, it happened so quickly."
    The people of Towyn—the residents and local authority officials—did not realise that a disaster was occurring until the water had come over the wall. When we asked the officials, "When did you realise that you had a disaster on your hands?" their answer was, "When we saw the water coming over the wall."
    It is not for us to apportion blame to individual council officials, but it is our duty to ascertain the facts. Having ascertained them, without apportioning blame, we must do our best to rectify an unsatisfactory situation. That is why we say in our report that there must be a better system of providing, and communicating, information to ensure that such a tragedy does not recur. In other words, if there is a similar occurrence, as might be the case late at night, it must he possible to move people from the area in time to avoid loss of life.
    If the Welsh Select Committee has been able to achieve anything, it has examined the situation in such a way that it can tell the Welsh Office and other responsible authorities, "Should such flooding happen again, we are now in a position to make recommendations to ensure that proper information is made available quickly so that people can be moved from their homes before the water engulfs them." If we do that, we shall have done our duty in part.
    When we took evidence, I also questioned British Rail officials on how they could respond to the need for repair work on the wall. I was glad that the Committee was given an assurance that British Rail intended to spend £6 million to restore the wall, improve it and ensure that we have proper sea defences in the area. Like the hon. Member for Delyn I hope that the Welsh Office will also respond. We cannot leave the entire responsibility for repair work on the sea defences to British Rail, which is a public utility. We have a wider duty as Members of Parliament. We must
    212
    tell the Welsh Office that it must make public money available to British Rail to assist it in that work. British Rail told us that it was prepared to spend £6 million. We ask the Government to match that commitment.
    Two further small points are important to the debate. The first is planning and land use in the area. Is it right for us immediately to consider a moratorium on further development in the area? If the recommendations of the Select Committee are accepted, it will mean de facto that there will be no further development. If local searches disclose that the area is susceptible to flooding, prospective purchasers will be put on warning. However, I do not believe that that should happen. There should be a moratorium on further planning consents until there has been an adequate response to the problem of sea defence.
    We saw the desolation of the land around Towyn. That means that the agricultural community also suffered from the flooding. The Government should make a commitment to make funds available to compensate farmers who suffered badly in such disasters, whether at Towyn, Abergele, Kinmel bay or any other part of Wales.
    I congratulate the Chair of the Committee on the way in which he organised us during our visit to Towyn and conducted the work of the Committee. I also congratulate him on the speed with which the report was made available to us. The officials of the Committee are also to be complimented. We await the response of the Welsh Office, which we hope and believe will be equally quick.
    6.3 pm
    Mr. David Porter: I welcome any money in the estimates for coast protection and sea defences. In the light of the debate on global warming and rising sea levels, one could always argue that the sums are not enough. However, today's debate shows the taxpayer's commitment to sea defences. That is important. It also shows that the Government recognise that sea defences are a national, not a local issue. For that reason I am delighted to see sea defences mentioned on the Order Paper today.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), I took the precaution of clarifying with Mr. Speaker before the debate that we could stretch your well-known tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by widening the debate to areas beyond the Welsh coast.
    I raised sea defence coast protection on the motion for the Easter Adjournment. In that debate I spoke after my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and expressed my sympathy for the plight of his constituents, adding the rider that it was only by the grace of God and the direction of the wind that we on the east coast were spared a similar fate. Little has changed since then, other than the fact that next winter is a few months closer.
    I wish to raise several points which are not new but as we are that much closer to winter, perhaps they need to be made as forcefully as possible over and over again. We have gone over much of the old ground today, but one newish issue is the importance that we attach to the environmental debate when considering sea defences arid how much weight it should carry in the balance of spending.
    In reply to a parliamentary question that I tabled yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), told me:

    213
    "In deciding whether or not to give such consent our policy is to require a proposal to be technically sound, cost effective and environmentally sympathetic and we have no plans to change that policy."
    That is fair enough. It appears that the Government give equal weight to all three elements. My hon. Friend continued:
    "We are not aware of any case in which a coast protection authority has decided not to seek our approval for works because environmental considerations were judged to override protection of homes. No proposal submitted to us has been denied our consent solely by reason of environmental considerations".
    Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State issue a circular to all local authorities clarifying that?
    The last point leads directly to my next, which is about a cluster of homes on the sand cliffs at Easton Baveants near Southwold, where a strengthening scheme is planned. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot give a verdict until all the statutory procedures are met. Ministers have assured me that it will be processed rapidly but that environmental and statutory objections must be taken into account. Suffolk county council, wearing its Suffolk heritage coast hat, will be raising objections. Again, a balance must be struck between environmentally gentle decay of the sand cliff and a scheme to save the houses in the immediate term and in the long run perhaps half Southwold, half Reydon, marshes, farmland and houses. It is not unreasonable to suggest that if those or any other houses are to be allowed to drop into the sea, compensation should be paid to the people caught in that balance and caught in the machine.
    The Coast Protection Act 1949 makes no provision for compensation and the Government have no plans to amend the Act to introduce such compensation. I plead that they should urgently reconsider their position. Compensation could be cheaper than sea defence schemes and it could certainly allow the natural erosion line much more scope.
    It is too much to expect one council, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with its wide brief, or any individual to determine the relative value of houses, land and the environment. No one person can evaluate whether sand and gravel, for example dredged from Sizewell B, should be piled on the beach to strengthen it or whether artificial reefs should be created off shore to soft-engineer a changing coast line. No one person can evaluate replacing hard engineering walls and groynes. No one person can do that, and nor can the more than 200 separate authorities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and other hon. Members have referred. Each authority has some measure of responsibility for coast protection. It can make only an ad hoc, piecemeal attempt. Surely one lesson from Towyn, from the 1953 floods in East Anglia and from any other erosion is that if we meddle with one part of the coast and strengthen one area, we weaken and make more vulnerable another. Everything that we do has an impact.
    It is a pity that it has taken the tragedy of Towyn to give us the Select Committee report, which has put one body on the agenda. For that reason, I welcome the report. The National Rivers Authority is the obvious body. Why on earth is it not beefed up now, without further delay? We should ask it to undertake a nationwide review of responsibility for the coast. Of course, we should allow
    214
    and, indeed, welcome any input from local authorities and experts, but let us have one buck, one body, one stop. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, who suggested that there should be a Bill on the matter, but we could do a great deal straight away simply by giving the NRA the necessary authority. Let us do so now before East Anglia is swamped.
    6.9 pm
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I agree with the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) about the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority. If it is to be given more responsibility, we must, for goodness' sake, ensure that it has the resources necessary to undertake it. It would be invidious to put extra responsibilities on the NRA without providing it with the adequate resources. I sympathise with the people of East Anglia and appreciate their fears, but the Welsh office must ensure that there is direct Welsh Office funding of the NRA's activities in Wales otherwise there is a danger that all the money will, understandably, be attracted to East Anglia.
    I thank the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs for the work it has done. I am not a member of that Committee, although I enjoyed being one in the past. It held a session in Wales when it took evidence, which was a great success. When a local problem occurs, a public session in that area, which takes evidence, goes down well with the people. They feel that the needs of the area are being properly taken into account and that Parliament is working more directly for them.
    I regret that this debate is taking place within a few hours of the publication of the report because, unlike other hon. Members, I have not had an opportunity to study it. That has put me in a difficult position, but no doubt the Minister and his hon. Friends are in the same one. None the less, I am delighted that it is possible to have prompt debates in the House on Select Committee reports. I agree with the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) that Welsh Grand Committee sessions should be used to debate such reports—that would be much more useful than some of the stereotype debates presently held.
    I extend my sympathy to the people of Towyn who have suffered so much—what happened was a tragedy. I live a few miles along the coast from Towyn and, having driven backwards and forwards along that coast, I have seen the problems for myself. We have all heard devastating stories, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) quoted effectively. The tragedy has hit everyone. I only wish that the response from private citizens had been better to the appeal that was launched. I am glad that the Government came forward when they did with the cash.
    The tragedy has affected everyone, including young people. A crowd of young teenagers in my constituency organised a rock concert—I have been told that I am supposed to refer to it as a "gig"—to raise money for the sufferers in Towyn. I am delighted that in one night that concert raised £550 and that my daughter Eluned and my son Hywel participated, along with dozens of others. Some 400 youngsters went to the concert, which was supported by everyone in the locality. That demonstrates the feeling in the area towards those who have suffered in Towyn. I also join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the

    215
    emergency workers for the part they played. I have heard nothing but glowing praise from all directions for their work.
    Obviously, this debate concentrates on Towyn because of the report just published and the experiences in February. There are, however, many other areas that suffered floods in the winter which are in danger of suffering from further floods if we are witnessing long-term changes in our climatic pattern. East Anglia is one such area under threat, but the coastline of my constituency covers some 100 miles, and hon. Members will appreciate that there are many vulnerable spots along it. Houses and communities risk being flooded, but there is the even greater danger of the loss, sometimes permanent, of valuable agricultural land.
    The floods of Towyn have highlighted the need for preventive work. I am not convinced that we have anything like the resource commitment necessary to undertake that work. Under the Bellwin formula, a large proportion of the costs of such disasters are met by central Government. Such money is welcome in the area in which it can be applied, but it is worth noting that the terms of the Bellwin scheme are designed to
    "provide special financial assistance to local authorities who, as a consequence of an emergency, would otherwise have an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life and property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities."
    The Bellwin formula applies to immediate work only and the money given is consequent on a tragedy—in other words, that money is not available for preventive work. We need the resources for such work.
    One of the two district councils in my area, the Dwyfor district council, has approached the Welsh Office because of flooding in Nefyn and Morfa Bychan. It needs permission from the Welsh Office to undertake additional capital expenditure to prevent future flooding. I know that there are many other areas along the coast of Wales that have similar problems.
    Two areas close to my home, Dinas Dinlle and Llandwrog, have experienced severe flooding of which the Minister will be aware. It has been estimated that the work necessary to put things right in Dinas Dinlle would cost £1 million, but that money is not available. Does responsibility for that work rest with Arfon borough council or the NRA? I understand that the NRA can fund up to 75 per cent. of such work, but we must ensure that it has the resources for such work. I know that in Clwyd the NRA has had almost all its money wiped out because of the action it took during the Towyn floods—it was involved from the early stages and helped to put down sandbags and the like. The NRA should receive central funding. At present, much of its work is locally funded, but we must reconsider its funding, especially if it is to meet the responsibilities placed on it.
    It is also important to consider the way in which cost-benefit analysis is used to determine whether capital work should be undertaken. Although such analysis is perfectly acceptable, a wider definition of the benefits of such work should be given rather than short-term, quantifiable ones. In Dinas Dinlle, the loss of land through flooding will have a major effect on tourism and amenities as well as on agriculture. The way in which the cost-benefit analysis is drawn up does not, however, adequately allow for such elements to be taken into consideration.
    216
    Close to the village of Llandwrog, four farms—Bodfan. Caer Loda, Ty Mawr and Maes Mawr—have been badly affected by floods. About 150 acres of agricultural land have been badly damaged because of sea breaking through the coast defences. The cost-benefit analysis undertaken showed that work to put matters right—building 1.8 km of new embankment to safeguard that land—would cost £440,000. The benefit of such work was quantified at £106,000.
    I find it difficult to accept that such a cost-benefit analysis can be applied properly. Those four farms lost important parts of their land from the ravages of the sea. A lot of low land along the Welsh coast could be equally vulnerable, but a cost-benefit analysis in each case would yield the same result. Investment would therefore not he made, and the pattern of Welsh farming would be disrupted. In Wales, we follow the old Hafod and Hendre pattern of farming, whereby the sheep are brought down from the mountains to graze on the lowlands in the winter. If those lands have lost their nutritional value, the sheep cannot be kept there, and the entire balance of Welsh agriculture will be thrown out.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a crucial difficulty, as the cost-benefit analysis creates a catch-22 problem. The Welsh Office has recently issued new strategic planning guidelines and, if one permits further developments along the coastal belt, greater sea defence strengthening can take place, when judged on a formula similar to the Waverley committee recommendations. If there is a moratorium on further developments along the coastal belt, the sea defences permitted under the cost-benefit formula will be far smaller and less expensive than the defences required if those further developments are permitted along the coast.
    Mr. Wigley: Yes, that is a great irony. It is catch-22. That is apposite to the case of Dinas Dinlle. Some of the sites there that might otherwise have been developed should now at least have the benefit of a moratorium because of the danger of allowing development in areas that are vulnerable to the sea. As the hon. Gentleman said, the only way of upping cost benefit may be by granting some planning permissions and that is a silly situation to be in. I realise that the impact of such developments is fairly recent, but there does need to be some new thinking in the Welsh Office.
    As the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A Meyer) said in his excellent speech, about a thousand acres of agriculture land in the vicinity of Towyn have been flooded. The Welsh Office has been willing to assist those farmers who have been affected and has given help in the form of gypsum, but it is a pity that such help cannot be extended to other areas. On 25 April, the then Secretary of State for Wales wrote to me saying that the gypsum being provided for the Towyn area should not be taken as a precedent for other agricultural areas. That is a problem, because many farms need such assistance.
    The National Farmers Union has highlighted three areas for action. First, if gypsum is not effective in the Towyn area, alternatives should be investigated and followed up. Secondly, there should be a detailed review of sea defences around the Welsh coast with the financial resources to make that meaningful. Thirdly—an important point to which I draw the Minister's attention—there should be a register setting out who is responsible for each

    217
    individual sea defence, and that should be made available. That is a good suggestion which would ensure that any necessary action is taken.
    The Minister may be aware that Meirionnydd district council has taken the initiative and undertaken a coastal zone management study of the Cambrian coast area and it is hoping that the whole Cambrian coast will be considered. The district council says:
    "The plan is to carry out the work over a three year period and to produce an inventory of existing coastal works; the definition of coastal processes and design criteria to apply across identified sections of shoreline and the recommended approach to future coastal works."
    That will be an excellent study. It has the support of the Welsh Office, and I hope that it will give resources where necessary.
    There are lessons to be learned from the experience of Towyn. I welcome this debate and the Select Committee's recommendations. I realise that the Minister cannot respond in detail to all of them tonight, but I support the plea by Conservative Back Benchers for a statement before we adjourn for the summer recess on the response of the Welsh Office. I am grateful to the Select Committee for its work.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. Martyn Jones: As a Clwyd Member, my constituency has no coastline, but I have a great concern for the people affected in Towyn. As has been said, if the flooding had occurred during the night there would have been deaths and, sadly, if there had been deaths, more concern would have been expressed nationally. Thankfully, no one died, but the disaster has been brushed under the carpet and has not received the publicity that it should have done. It should have been publicised more widely. With global warming, world temperatures and sea levels will rise and we need a national co-ordinating authority if we are to tackle properly the problems that we shall face.
    I heard on the radio the other day about the East Anglian floods in 1953. I was only six at the time, so I do not remember them, but I am sure that some hon. Members do. Sadly, deaths did occur then, but apparently there was a much more co-ordinated response. I am told that that disaster captured the nation's imagination. The flooding at Towyn was second only to the East Anglian flooding in terms of damage done and the number of people affected, but it does not seem to have aroused the same national concern, as it should have done.
    We need to examine ways forward and to decide whether to maintain the status quo, to group together under existing legislation to form a coast protection board, to concentrate responsibility on the National Rivers Authority, or to establish a new national authority with appropriate powers to deal with sea defence and coastal protection.
    Since its establishment in September 1989, the NRA seems to have had problems dealing with emergencies on the scale of that at Towyn. It has also had to deal with the Mersey pollution and the Tewkesbury flooding. Its powers appear to be somewhat limited when it comes to dealing with the sort of problems that we faced in Towyn. The NRA's staffing levels are not adequate and there needs to
    218
    be more co-ordination between the various bodies, particularly in respect of the long-term planning of developments in areas such as Towyn.
    The local councils have called on the Welsh Office for an investigative analysis of the conditions in Liverpool bay relating to climatic changes, the consequences of raised sea levels and the increased frequency of storms. They have requested an investigation of alternatives for improved co-ordination within existing legislation and have called on the county and district councils, with the NRA, to prepare reports on the preparation of a flood hazard map for the Clwyd coastal area.
    Clwyd county council put in an enormous amount of effort, and credit should be given to it for that. Not being a member of the Select Committee, I have not read the report, but I am sure that credit will be given to the councils involved. The difference between the district council and the county council is that the district has immediate responsibility and, seemingly, some immediate financial help, whereas the county appears to have done rather more and received rather less help.
    In terms of social services and community services, the county provided local advice and information centres at Kinmel bay and Towyn community centres. Contact was made with residents for the purpose of a basic assessment of need and that work was carried out largely with the support of social work staff seconded to the department from other local authorities, significantly those in Wales and the north-west of England. That work was completed by the end of March, but it was decided that further problems needed to be examined. As of 2 April 1990, therefore, a community social work team was established in Towyn to serve the needs of Pensarn, Towyn and Kinmel bay. Staff were seconded from social work teams in Clwyd and from Cheshire and Knowsley.
    Social work was being carried out and initiatives were being taken to prevent problems such as family breakdown. We have heard some graphic accounts of the kind of problem that arose at the time. It is perhaps rather more difficult to arouse public interest in the horrendous long-term problem. A statement by a resident whose house was not fully insured illustrates the long-term problems faced by the county council:
    "I just feel rootless. Your house is ripped apart, your contents not covered. I know that it's my fault, in fact I feel homeless even though I know I have a home. We don't feel well and healthy; it's a miserable existence. I am working as a professional and can identify my own feelings and somehow can't act on them. I feel resentment and guilt although I don't know why. I know why I feel resentment, but not why I feel guilt. For the first time in my life I feel inadequate, I feel things are out of hand. I can't cope with the children the same, my patience is not as it was, I want to blame someone. It sounds crazy but I don't think I am different to anyone else and many are worse off than us."
    Such problems must be acknowledged as requiring a social response of at least medium-term duration, and there must be a recognition that they are likely to have a long-term impact on resources. There is a need for continuity in staffing, and that can be achieved by at least being able to specify a minimum period of dedication of full-time work. When a team is adequately established it will need to provide the usual range of services and will also need to assess, monitor and define the task.
    In addition to the social work teams, the county council funded real community agencies and set up a community development project to help in the aftermath of the floods and to deal with the problems that I have outlined. Some

    219
    of the funding comes from an urban aid submission. Urban aid comes from a fund set up to deal with all the other problems facing Clwyd, and if there are no additional funds, the whole Clwyd area will suffer.
    In the last couple of years, the county has had to deal with unforeseen emergencies. It has had an outbreak of anthrax, heather and grass fires have been caused by the drought, there was a landslip at Trevor in my constituency, and now there has been flooding on the north Wales coast. The total cost of those emergencies was estimated at £4.4 million. The county council as not seen a penny of the much vaunted Bellwin money, so the increase from 75 to 95 per cent. does not mean a thing, because 95 per cent. of nothing is still nothing. The county council threshold is £861,000, but it incurred about £450,000 of eligible expenditure and therefore receives nothing.
    Perhaps the Minister will deal with the Bellwin scheme in his winding-up speech. He should consider changing not the percentage but the eligible expenditure. He could consider a lower threshold to allow aggregation of the emergency expenditure on the anthrax outbreak at Singret farm and on the other problems that I have mentioned. He could extend the deadline and allow normal wage costs and not just overtime costs. He should allow normally insurable expenditure, permit additional credit approval, and fully reimburse the cost of the police and armed forces. Such measures would genuinely reimburse the county in dealing with its problems.
    Westminster city council was given £6 million for flood defences and used about £200,000 of it. The rest was used to reduce poll tax bills. However, when there were floods in Towyn, no money was given to the county council.
    6.34 pm
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): All hon. Members will agree that the debate has been valuable. Naturally, we have concentrated on the north Wales coast, but we welcomed the contributions from our English colleagues—especially my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Waveney (Mr. Porter), who clearly have problems in their constituencies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives on securing a visit by our noble Friend the Baroness Trumpington, who I am sure put heart into many of his constituents. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney will know that questions about floods and coastal defences in England are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Where the problems relate to revenue support grant payments, they are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall certainly draw to their attention what my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives and for Waveney have said.
    We all fully appreciate and understand the continuing problems still faced by many of the residents of Towyn and the surrounding area so long after the dreadful floods of February and March. As many hon. Members have said, mercifully, no lives were lost. The Government are determined to ensure that as much as possible is done to help the people who suffered and to set matters right in that area.
    From the start, Welsh Office Ministers have taken a close interest in the situation. I flew to the area at the height of the disaster on Tuesday 27 February, and that in itself was a hair-raising experience. The traumatic scenes
    220
    and the experiences endured by the people were unforgettable. The former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) also visited the area. My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State has visited Towyn again to see for himself the problems that remain to be overcome.
    A primary task must be to restore confidence in the area both for residents and visitors, and to build a situation in which a repetition of those dreadful events can be avoided. We are working towards that. I hope that we can create an effective partnership with the local authorities to tackle what must be done.
    I take this opportunity, as others have done, to give credit to those who have worked so hard in the area to alleviate the worst of the immediate problems. I have in mind staff at the district and county councils who worked long and hard to provide temporary accommodation for those who were evacuated, to provide counselling services and to meet many other needs of the flood victims.
    I must also mention the invaluable work not only of the emergency services and the armed forces but also of the voluntary bodies which are, among others, the citizens advice bureau, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the girl guides and the housing associations, which were rightly praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). Without them, many of the needs of the area could not have been met. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West, who has stoically borne this disaster along with his constituents, that our main concern throughout has been to ensure that, as soon as possible everyone has a permanent roof over his head, preferably in his own home.
    Many residents had inadequate or no insurance cover on their homes and that placed many people in difficulty about meeting the cost of repairs. The new renovation grants scheme, which came into effect on 1 July, will be of great value in helping such people.
    The new, more objective, standard of fitness for habitation that we introduced on 1 April should ensure that all properties have the basic amenities and do not suffer from major physical or structural problems that would render them unfit. That is very much the case with many homes in the Towyn area of north Wales. Mandatory grant is now available for unfit houses to be brought up to the new standard. The new minor works grant, introduced on 1 April, will be of particular help to elderly people, whose homes may need only a small amount of work. Provided that those people are in receipt of income-related benefit, they will receive assistance with the full cost of essential repairs, up to a maximum of £1,000.
    We are anxious that our new grant system should target resources on those who are least able to afford to repair or improve their homes. Subject to the test of resources, those on limited means could receive assistance up to the full cost of the works with up to 100 per cent. grant. We are anxious that the new system should have maximum impact in Wales generally, and that any assistance is not. frustrated by a lack of resources. Therefore, we shall ensure that additional capital resources are made available, if necessary, in this financial year.
    With regard to the disaster, a report was commissioned by the Welsh Office from Hydraulics Research Ltd. to examine the design standards required for coastal

    221
    defences, a version of which was made available to the Select Committee. The report is being published in its entirety this week.
    The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), to whom we are all indebted as Chairman of the Select Committee, referred to that report and, obliquely, to its conclusion. The report states that, although the wave height, surge and astronomical tide levels were each high, they were not exceptional in their own right. The damage was due to a freak combination of all three factors at the same time.
    The calculations and conclusions have been drawn together to give recommended values of water level and offshore wave conditions for use in the design of coastal defences on the north Wales coast. The results of the study are already in use by Hydraulics Research Ltd., which is undertaking testing on behalf of British Rail of the proposed upgraded sea defences for Towyn.
    Extensive reference has been made to the Select Committee's report that was published only today. As I implied earlier, the Government will need time to consider the report's recommendations and will need to consider the comments of other organisations, such as local authorities and the National Rivers Authority, to which recommendations are also addressed. Therefore, I cannot give a definitive response to the recommendations—the Government's full response must come later—but I can make some comments.
    Two of the Committee's recommendations—paragraph 28 on evacuation procedures and paragraph 61 on advice on insurance—are primarily for local authorities to consider, and we must await their views. The recommendation in paragraph 24—on the provision of a tidal gauge in north Wales—is already under active consideration, as my Department stated in paragraph 15 of its second memorandum of evidence. I am sure that those involved will take note of the Committee's views.
    The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) asked me about the estimate of costs. The estimated cost of selecting a suitable site, and designing and installing a tide gauge, would be about £40,000 to £45,000.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister of State give an absolute commitment that such a gauge will be installed?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I have said that it is under active consideration. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to go further than that, and I cannot possibly do so.
    Mr. Jones rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The recommendation in paragraph 39 about provision of design standards will need careful consideration. As the Committee was told in paragraphs 10 and 11 of my Department's second memorandum, advice is already disseminated to those with responsibility for sea defence works. We shall need to consider whether any changes in the present arrangements are necessary or practicable. The recommendation in paragraph 42 that certain maintenance work be eligible for grant is also under consideration by my Department, as paragraph 20 of our second memorandum of evidence stated. I assure the House that we shall take careful note of the Committee's views in coming to a decision.
    222
    The recommendation in paragraph 59, which has arisen during this debate, relates to planning advice. The issue of where new development is permitted in the aftermath of the floods is one which, in the first instance, the local planning authorities must address. Advice to planning authorities on liaison with those authorities responsible for land drainage is contained in Welsh Office circular 15/82, which asks planning authorities to bear in mind the vulnerability of any development in an area that is protected from the danger of flooding, should that protection be breached. In the light of the floods in north Wales and elsewhere, we are, as the Committee knows, considering whether it is desirable to re-issue the advice in the circular. We shall take the Committee's recommendation into account.
    An alteration, reviewing the Clwyd structure plan, was submitted to the Welsh Office earlier this year. In considering that alteration for approval, officials will consider, with council officers, the need for any modifications to the submitted plan and will also discuss the issue of an early review.
    Mr. Raffan: While I appreciate that my hon. Friend cannot possibly give a definitive Welsh Office response to the Select Committee report today, will he say when he expects the Welsh Office to be able to do so? Other Select Committee members present in the Chamber will agree that we have had unfortunate experiences with Government responses in the past. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) nodding in agreement with that. There have been far too long delays, and we need a full response promptly.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I appreciate the urgency of the response, but I have already said that there are other organisations involved with which we must consult. We shall produce our response as soon as possible, but I am sure that the House will agree that hon. Members require a proper response from the Government. That is why today, within hours of the document's publication, I can give only limited responses.
    The issue of a moratorium on development in the district is primarily a matter for the local planning authority.
    Mr. Barry Jones: As the Minister of State knows that hon. Members from both sides are asking for speedy decisions from him and the Government, would he like to debate the report at greater length in the Welsh Grand Committee before the House rises?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We have already had a fairly extensive debate on the report today. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a matter for further consideration, possibly through the usual channels. Obviously, that idea has just occurred to the hon. Gentleman. Two debates on this subject within one month would be excessive. The House might wish to consider whether it would prefer to await the Government's response, which we shall produce as soon as possible, when there might be a better opportunity for debate. We are all talking off the top of our heads in relation to any future debates. The timing of such debates is not exactly a matter for decision across these Benches.

    223
    The recommendation in paragraph 60 proposes changes in the building regulations for properties in districts liable to flooding. All I can say at present is that we shall consider that recommendation.
    The first recommendation in paragraph 50 of the Committee's report is that the various Acts relating to coastal defence and coast protection be consolidated into a single Act. That was strongly endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). Again, all I can say is that we shall consider the Committee's recommendations, but I am sure that the House will appreciate what is involved.
    The four recommendations in paragraphs 23, 26, 27 and the second part of paragraph 50 are all related, in that their aim is to improve the standard and co-ordination of flood warnings both in north Wales and elsewhere. They raise a number of issues and will involve Government, local authorities, the NRA and others in consideration of them. In the aftermath of the disaster, it is important that we all try to learn lessons for the future. The Committee's analysis and recommendations have highlighted some important points that we need to consider carefully.
    There are two interrelated warning systems operating on the west coast of England and Wales—the Meteorological Office met flood warning and the Neptune warning, which is operated by the NRA north western region. As I implied during an intervention, the problem with the Neptune system is that the accuracy of prediction cannot yet be relied upon and authorities are loathe to issue public warnings on the basis of it as there would be too many false alarms. Although the prediction of the surge in Liverpool bay on 26 February was, in the words of the Proudman oceanographic laboratory, "surprisingly accurate", the same cannot be said for many of the other predictions or, indeed, for that in the Severn estuary on the same day.
    However—this is good news for the Committee and for advocates of the Neptune system—it is anticipated that, with the installation this year of a new computer at the Meterological Office giving greater resolution of weather conditions, and the establishment of additional tide gauges on the Welsh coast, sea flood warnings can be improved. I assure the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that that tide gauge is very much on the cards.
    Although at this stage I cannot be precise on the final level of Government assistance to local authorities and others in the flood-affected areas of north Wales, I estimate that it is likely to total almost £4 million, and it could exceed that figure. That is a substantial contribution to the needs of the area, which will not only help greatly in getting things back to normal, but will also relieve the burden on Colwyn borough council, which bore the brunt of the floods, and its community charge payers.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Can my hon. Friend give a rough estimate of the additional burden that next year might fall on the community charge payers of Colwyn borough council?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: It would be premature to make any such estimate.
    At the outset, the Government made a contribution of £150,000 to the appeal funds set up by the mayors of Colwyn, Rhuddlan and Delyn. It is the first time that such a contribution has been made when there has been no loss of life. It shows the seriousness with which the
    224
    Government viewed the position. The European Community also made a contribution of £111,500 to the funds. The appeal funds were not intended to be the main source of assistance to the flood-affected areas, and have never been thought of as such. The funds, and the use to which they are put, are the responsibility of the trustees.
    The Department of Social Security has made payments of some £300,000 in community care grants to flood victims. Ministers at the Department of Social Security have already given careful consideration to whether to extend the criteria for the payment of community care grants. However, to relax the existing criteria would be to go against the basic principle of targeting resources on those most in need.
    The Government's contribution has not ended there—grants totalling at least a further £1.5 million are likely to be paid out under the Bellwin scheme of special financial assistance to local authorities. In the exceptional circumstances of the north Wales floods, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that an enhanced rate of grant will be paid towards eligible expenditure above a threshold on costs borne by authorities in responding to the emergency.
    The grant rate will be 95 per cent. on eligible expenditure incurred after 1 April, and the scheme will apply to expenditure incurred up to 31 July—three months longer than would usually be the case. He remains prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any case which is put to him to extend the time scale still further. That will be of some consolation to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister comment on the cost-benefit analysis? Is he prepared to consider the way in which benefit is computed to try to maximise the possibility of preventing future problems?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall carefully consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    The Government will thus be paying for most of the cost of emergency repairs to the sea defences and, even more significantly in this context, the costs of housing the homeless and restoring the position in the devastated area as quickly as possible. That demonstrates the flexibility of the Government's response to such disasters.
    I know that Clwyd county council is concerned that, to date, it has received no assistance under the Bellwin arrangements, because eligible expenditure has not yet reached the threshold. I understand that it is currently preparing a submission that looks for the relaxation of the Bellwin rules to cover its particular problems. When that submission is received, it will be carefully and sympathetically considered.
    Colwyn borough council, which bore the brunt of the disaster, has estimated that its expenditure will eventually total about £1.25 million. Of that, more than £1 million will be met by Bellwin grant. Substantial costs have also been incurred by other coastal authorities, and they too will receive Bellwin grant where the conditions of the scheme are met.
    My right hon. Friend has already presented cheques totalling over £600,000 to Colwyn and Rhuddlan borough councils on the basis of interim claims, and we have asked all councils to let us have estimates of their total expenditure incurred in dealing with the emergency. Several have now done so.

    225
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said, British Rail has confirmed that it will be taking responsibility for the upgrading of sea defences at Towyn and Pensarn at a cost of £8 million to £10 million. The works will take until autumn 1992 to complete. To protect the area over the two winters until the permanent works are completed, interim works are proposed, to be completed by October this year. The rock used for the interim works will be eventually incorporated into the permanent works, and the costs of the interim works are therefore included in the cost of the permanent works.
    The cost to British Rail of the emergency sealing of the breach at Towyn is understood to have been about £1 million, and the cost of other works to protect their lines in Wales is estimated at a further £4 million.
    With regard to coast protection works, about £18 million has been spent in the past ten years, attracting grant of over £12.5 million. Notable schemes within that programme are the offshore breakwater at Rhos on Sea, the breakwaters at nearby Penrhyn bay in my constituency, and the extensive works at Prestatyn, which are about half completed. Those works undoubtedly saved the north Wales coastline from a much more extensive disaster than the one we suffered.
    I gave full details of annual expenditure and schemes assisted in Wales in response to a question by the hon. Member for Caernarfon published in Hansard of 24 January 1990. The rate of grant can be as much as 70 per cent. of eligible costs. Grant provisions for this financial year are in the region of £3.5 million, which is considerably more than at any time previously. I hope that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has heard that answer to one of the points that he raised. Provision for grant is already secured for the next three years at an equivalent level to this year. That provision will cover a major project recently commenced at Colwyn Bay promenade, and completion of works at Prestatyn. Major schemes are also anticipated at Llandudno and Llanelli, in addition to many smaller schemes.
    Mr. Raffan: As regards coast protection work at Prestatyn, will my hon. Friend consider compressing the three-year programme into two years, as I suggested? Also, will he address my point about the Nova complex, as it will be a heavy burden on Rhuddlan borough council if it has to find £200,000 without permission to spend above its capital allocation?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall carefully consider both the issues that the hon. Member mentioned. We have considerable sympathy with Rhuddlan because of the devastation of the Nova complex. Obviously, we would wish to hasten coastal protection work if at all possible.
    During the past ten years, nearly £3.5 million has been spent by the National Rivers Authority and its
    226
    predecessors on new and improved sea defence works in Wales to protect against flooding, and more than £2 million has been paid in Government grants. I understand that the National Rivers Authority and other relevant authorities propose significant work in the coming years. With this in mind, the NRA has just embarked on a full survey of sea defences in Wales, as I mentioned earlier.
    A number of hon. Members have advocated a national body to play a supervisory role, but I can assure them that the proposal was considered in 1985, and again in 1989 and local authorities, whose knowledge is vital, were totally opposed to setting up such a body. Nevertheless, the National Rivers Authority already has a general supervisory role over all matters relating to flood defence, and it undertakes sea defence works in its own right. It is also consulted on all coast protection schemes and any objections that it, or any other body, has are referred to the Secretary of State. So there is a mechanism whereby the NRA can positively influence coastal defence strategy. The Government's view is that the present system can work well, if it is sensibly applied, and therefore no major changes are envisaged.
    7.3 pm
    Mr. Wardell: In the three minutes that I have left to me, I must say that I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to congratulate the Minister on his birthday today. We meet for the second time today, as earlier we were both in Committee on the Caldey Island Bill. The Minister's assurances that there would be no retrospective payment of community charge for the good people of Caldey was equalled by the comments that he just made and by his optimistic tone when he described what we expect the Government to do in response to the report.
    I do not mind too much if the Government spend a little time responding to our report, provided that they implement most of our recommendations in that period so that they will be able to say in their report that they have already accomplished our recommendations.
    I do not mind if the Government claim the credit. The important thing is that the many lessons of the experience be learned. I shall not list the lessons now, but, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said, the way forward is to ensure that legislation is introduced to tidy up existing laws, to give the NRA a leading role in promoting coastal protection schemes and to make financing simpler. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives sums up our concerns, and I hope that the Government will consider them.
    It being three hours after the commencement of the proceedings, the debate was concluded, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings were deferred pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

    CLASS VIII, VOTE 4
    [Relevant document: Third Report from the Environment Committee of Session 1989–90 on the Department of the Environment's Main Estimates 1990–91 ( House of Commons Paper No. 373 ).]

Gipsy Sites
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a further sum, not exceeding £30,785,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on road infrastructure required for the development of new towns, gypsy sites, smoke control, planning redevelopment and other environmental services, on other water supply, conservation and sewerage services, and on town and country planning (including compensation).—[Mr. Chope.]
7.6 pm
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Committee on the Environment on the Department of the Environment's main estimates for 1990–1991, with special reference to vote 4, Bl. It would be appropriate to record our thanks to Mr. Richard Dudding and Mr. John Adams at the Department of the Environment for their helpful co-operation, enabling the Committee to reach the conclusions of its report, and for their full anwers to the sometimes forceful questions that were put to them during our deliberations. I should also like to record my appreciation of the leadership of our Select Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who brings us great experience and considerable enthusiasm and who helps us do an important job.
I am a great believer in the work that Select Committees do and in bringing their reports to the House. We appreciate the opportunity to debate a report hot off the press.
Select Committee do an enormous variety of work and cover detailed as well as broad subjects. I cannot help contrasting our previous debate with this one. A few moments ago we were debating the consequences of what my insurance people would call an act of God earlier this year. Now we are considering the consequences of an Act of Parliament passed more than 20 years ago. The consequences are still with us: that is the nub of the Select Committee's report and recommendations.
We recognise the difficult problems posed by itinerants. There are different points of view. I am sure that the viewpoint of Lord Avebury, who, as Eric Lubbock, steered the legislation through Parliament, would be different from my own. As a constituency Member of Parliament who, in common with some of my hon. Friends, has had problems with itinerants, I have received many representations from constituents about a variety of related issues.
Above all there is the problem of visual pollution. To some people gipsies may be historic Romany folk with brightly painted caravans towed by horses but those of us who have experienced the problem in recent years know that it has more to do with tumbledown caravans and beaten-up vehicles and piles of scrap and rubbish, and that those people often occupy inappropriate sites that are extremely visible to the general public.
228
There is also a problem associated with the vandalism of large areas of woodland to provide fuel for fires. Theft often occurs as well. A farmer in my constituency found after gipsies had camped on land adjacent to his farm that the water supply for his cattle was regularly used by the itinerants. He had to pay a huge bill and he could not reclaim the money from anyone.
My personal interest in the matter goes back a long way. I served on Chiltern district council in Buckinghamshire until I became a Member of the House. We spent long hours debating the location of official sites before we received designations. The galling aspect was that no sooner had the official sites been built and opened than they were vandalised by the very people who were supposed to benefit from them. At that time a pitch cost about £10,000; no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will bring us up to date on how much one would cost now.
The Select Committee has considered the matter on several occasions. The first time I remember it doing so was in 1984–85, soon after I joined the Committee, and the problem has recurred almost every year since then. This time we have come up with some specific recommendations, which I shall attempt to summarise.
It is time to set a realistic timetable for site provision, with the threat of much more vigorous use of the Secretary of State's powers of direction against laggard authorities. Foremost among the reasons for his recommendation was the slow provision of official pitches. Hon. Members may be interested to hear some statistics. There were 211 more caravans on authorised sites in July 1989 than in July 1988, and 171 new pitches became available on local authority sites during the financial year 1989–90. That represents a decline from the 250 new pitches in the calendar year 1987 and no improvement on the 200 to 300 annual increases reported by the Department of the Environment for 1982 to 1987. The Committee estimates that, at the present rate of new provision, it would take 25 years to solve the problem.
The Secretary of State has only twice used his powers of direction under section 9 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. In November 1988 he directed Hertfordshire county council to make provision for sites for 110 caravans. It is no coincidence that I am the Member for Hertfordshire, West, because I had to bully successive Ministers at the Department over that matter before any action was forthcoming. In June 1989, Surrey county council was directed to provide for 180 caravans. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Committee recommended much more vigorous use of that power. The numbers involved are immense and there seems to be little progress.
The number of caravans on unauthorised sites continues to grow. Figures supplied by the Department in 1985 showed a decline in numbers from 4,245 in January 1980 to an estimated 3,472 in January 1985. In answer to a parliamentary question on 6 February 1987—at column 856 in Hansard—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) identified about 3,000; but last year the DOE reported the proportion of caravans on unauthorised sites as virtually unchanged at about 34 per cent., despite the creation of about 250 new pitches, as more gipsies than usual were being recorded. Most worrying of all, this year's public expenditure White Paper reports the proportion on unauthorised sites at 35 per cent., which is an increase. That makes a total of 4,500 caravans, so the solution to the problem seems to be receding.

229
The Committee first expressed its worry about the legislation in its report of the 1984–85 Session, when we recommended that the Department should conduct a review of policy on gipsy sites. It was carried out by Professor Wibberley, professor of countryside planning in the university of London. He made several recommendations, the first of which a more specific definition of gipsies for the purpose of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, based on employment and life style, with the intention of excluding social drop-outs.
In response, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said that he defined gipsies in terms of a nomadic habit of life—which seems a rather circular argument. In recent years not just itinerants, as they were called in the past, but many of what my constituents call diddikois seem to have joined this group; they are people from all sorts of background. There has certainly been an influx of peace people from various camps around the country. That is why the problem is growing.
The difficulty is not confined to unauthorised sites on land. As a member of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, I am conscious of the fact that exactly the same phenomenon is occurring on the water, in the shape of illegal moorings. The problem has more to do with the break-up of some parts of society and with general problems of homelessness than with genuine Romany folk. Professor Wibberley's recommendation is still relevant and I hope that the Department will again consider tightening the legislation's definition.
The professor also recommended a review of designated areas to ensure that the designation procedure works more fairly and efficiently. He recommended better and more frequent counts of gipsy families and measures to reduce resident hostility towards gipsies' sites, including speeding up planning decisions and facilitating discussions between gipsies and residents. Finally, he recommended encouraging gipsy groups to act as site operators, and quicker and more generous provision of capital grants for sites. Incidentally, I must commend the Department's improvement of the grant regime. I hope that that will encourage more local authorities to provide sites. As Mr. Dudding explained when giving evidence:
"there are other authorities which would … even if they had the £5 notes put in front of their eyes, be reluctant".
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will touch on that aspect if he catches the Chair's eye—it is a problem that has been especially apparent in Haringey.
The real difficulty is that the goalposts are continually moving. Even local authorities that are motivated to try to achieve designation find that they run into increasing difficulties of litigation. As soon as a local authority applies for designation on the basis of the number of itinerants who are, in the terms of the Act, resorting to the area, there is another influx of people. That means that the designation order falls because there is no relation between the number of official pitches and the number of the gipsies in the area.
It is little wonder that some local authorities, faced with all the political problems of trying to set up sites against the will of local residents, give up, especially when confronted by vociferous gipsy support groups with access to legal assistance.
230
How does one define who resorts to an area? Is it someone who has come to an area for many years, or is it someone who has come to the area only recently? There seems to be no way to define it. I have always taken the view that we do not need more direction from the Department of the Environment, or a different grant regime. We need a reframing of the legislation so that, with fairer definitions, local authorities can get on with the job of providing sites for the genuine traveller and ensuring that the police move on those who are not genuine travellers.
I am encouraged by the Department's response to a question that I put to it. Mr. Dudding said:
"I think the Secretary of State's words in reply to the Committee last year were open to change; they were not ruling them out. And I think that is somehting that we shall continue to think about and I am sure that Ministers will be interested to read the views of the Committee in their Report because that is a source of advice to them by which, as you know, they have been influenced in the past."
There is plenty of material for reconsideration.
I hope that the Minister will be able to provide more up-to-date information. The Department has commissioned a study to identify good practice among local authorities in achieving site provision. It has also commissioned another study to establish the accuracy of the half-yearly counts of gipsies. I understand that the results would be made available in June 1990. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has them with him and that he will be able to enlighten the House.
It has taken virtually the whole time that I have been a Member of Parliament for my local authority to be granted designation after its initial application. During that period, local residents, particularly in the parishes of Wigginton and Tring Rural, but also in Tring, became increasingly frustrated by what they believed to be the Department of the Environment's inability to act in such a way as to protect them from all the environmental problems that I described earlier. I had to explain to them many times that I believed that the cause of the problem was the imprecise nature of the legislation that had been piloted through the House. That is not surprising, since it was a Liberal measure. Nevertheless, a Conservative Government ought to do something about it.
I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the pressing needs of communities throughout the country who wish to be rid of those problems. Genuine travellers ought to be provided with a decent life style and somewhere to live so that education can be provided for their children, but the law needs to be reformed to deal with the remainder.
7.22 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I thank the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for introducing the debate. I also thank the Select Committee on the Environment for its third report. I intend to confine my remarks to that part of the report which deals with gipsy sites and travellers. As the area represented by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West has been designated, I was interested in what he had to say about the problem. He drew attention to the many difficulties that flow from designation. Bradford was designated by the Minister earlier this year.
Many of those who support designation give the public the impression that it is a magic wand solution to all the difficulties caused by travellers. There is therefore

231
considerable public resentment and cynicism when the problems continue after designation. The Government will continue to face difficulties if they grant designation, but the problems remain unsolved.
The report states that 112 authorities have been designated under section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. They include Doncaster and Bradford. Another 11 applications for designation are being considered by the Department. Bradford continues to face problems. Designation was granted by the Minister days before the local elections, but I should be the last to suggest any connection between his decision and the elections looming on 3 May. His letter provided background information to the granting of designation, stating that the grounds for designation were that it would not be expedient for the then Conservative-controlled Bradford council to make additional permanent provision in Bradford.
Like many other people in Bradford, I thought that that was an extraordinary decision. We have tussled with this problem for many years. We met a Minister from the Department of the Environment two or three years ago, when it was made clear to us that, unless Bradford provided a third permanent site for travellers, designation would not be granted. A third permanent site has not been provided and the two permanent sites in Bradford have not been improved. Nevertheless, the Minister granted designation.
The new Labour administration in Bradford has stated that it will not instruct its officers to implement designation. The new administration wants to monitor the position before taking action. It is anxious to find out whether neighbouring authorities, including Calderdale, Kirklees and Craven, have provided any permanent sites before it decides to implement the designation orders.
The traveller merry-go-round that we have witnessed in Bradford For many years continues. Travellers have resorted—to use the official jargon of the Act—to Bradford for well over a century. Environment Ministers have accepted for many years that two permanent sites offer totally insufficient permanent provision for the caravans of travellers who come regularly to Bradford. They accept that a third site is needed, but it has not been provided. My local newspaper, The Telegraph and Argus, reported recently on the eviction of travellers from unofficial sites and on their moving to other unofficial sites. Council officers are considering applying for yet more eviction orders. A council official is quoted as saying that
"it was a problem finding sites that met the needs of the travellers. Shortage of sites for gipsies was a problem because the inner city Mary street site was full."
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. South (Mr. Cryer) is in the Chamber. He and I visited the Mary street site last summer. At the same time we visited the official site at Esholt. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me that we were very dissatisfied with the standard of the facilities that are provided there. The Esholt street site is adjacent to a rifle range. We were shown bullet cartridges that had ricocheted over an earth embankment behind the rifle range. The drainage and the washing facilities at the site are totally unsatisfactory. It is no wonder that the travellers are extremely reluctant to use that remote site, which is well away from the shops and schools. The Mary street site was also in a shocking condition. The showers and washing facilities had been vandalised and many of the travellers we met complained about the standard of facilities there.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the vandalism that he mentioned had not been carried out by the travellers and that one of the difficulties was that on occasions there was a degree of hostility and youths would stone the caravans and vandalise the toilet blocks at the site? The toilet blocks had been in need of repairs for many months and the travellers were making the best of what was patently a bad job.
Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Minister granted designation, he said in his background note that Bradford council was to spend money on improving the Mary street and Esholt street sites. I have made inquiries but I cannot ascertain whether there have been any improvements at those sites. I was amazed that the Minister stated in his note and in correspondence with me that his officials had found the facilities and the general conditions at both sites reasonable. He and his officials seem alone in that view. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and others who are interested and concerned are extremely disassatisfied with the standard of the facilities at both sites. We also remain firmly of the view that a third permanent site must be provided in Bradford.
The views of the gipsy spokesperson, Ann Purcell, were reported in the Telegraph and Argus:
"she expected her family would be moved on again from New Lane by the council. But she believed it would be cheaper for the council to provide them with a proper site instead of chasing them around the city. Council officials offered the family space at official site at Esholt but Mrs. Purcell said: `It's miles away from anywhere, especially the school and there are no shops within walking distance.' … She said there is not enough room to accommodate travellers at two official sites in the Bradford district and condemned the scrapping of a plan three years ago to turn some derelict land at Listerhills into another gipsy site.".
The Minister should know that the previous Conservative administration came to power partly clue to the hysteria that had been whipped up deliberately by the Conservative party in Bradford over travellers and gipsies. During that campaign, leading Conservatives sought to gain cheap party political support on the back of a promise that designation would resolve all the problems and that the traveller problem could be wholly removed only if designation were granted. Designation has been granted and the problems continue.
I hope that the Minister will say how much money that previous Tory administration told him it had committed to spending on improving the Esholt street and Mary street sites. When he granted designation, his background note suggested that the Conservative administration in Bradford was also committed to providing further private sites in Bradford. I have been unable to get any information about the location of those private sites. As the Minister must have been given some information by the previous Conservative administration in Bradford about where those private sites were likely to be situated, I should like to know where they are and what progress is being made.
Mr. Cryer: I should be interested to know what encouragement the Minister is giving neighbouring authorities to provide sites. I understand that Craven, Kirklees and Calderdale local authorities do not provide one alternative site. No doubt the Government are

233
anxiously providing all possible assistance in the way of advice and grant aid to encourage those authorities to play their part.
Mr. Madden: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. What information has the Minister received from Calderdale, Kirklees and Craven about their current efforts to identify suitable permanent sites? It would be idle and politically dishonest for the Minister to pretend that designation without neighbouring authorities offering permanent sites, improvements to the existing two sites, the provision of a third permanent site, more private sites, and a general overall improvement in Bradford, would provide any long-term satisfactory solution to the difficulties which have arisen for many years and which will continue unless the Government take decisive action.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West made the case for my last point. The parent legislation is more than 20 years old and needs to be reformed to meet current circumstances and the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman highlighted. The Committee says that, at the current rate of progress, it will take 25 years to accommodate those known travellers who desire proper permanent sites with proper facilities. I hope that the Minister will not be satisfied with that rate of progress.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West made the case for regional planning. It is quite wrong to leave individual district authorities to reach piecemeal solutions on the back of a variety of local circumstances. Surely the only way in which we can make progress and meet the demands of travellers and the requirements of settled residents is through a national gipsy traveller programme and regional programmes to ensure that in West Yorkshire, for example, Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Wakefield and other authorities make planned and systematic provision to alleviate the problems caused to travellers and local residents.
If the Minister rejects that suggestion, in Bradford and other places, either the merry-go-round will continue and designation will prove wholly unsuitable to deal with the problems, or police and council officials will become involved in potentially dangerous confrontations between travellers and groups of local residents, with caravans being towed to the borders of authority districts and travellers seeking unofficial sites in places such as Calderdale and Kirklees where there is no official provision or returning to Bradford to occupy unofficial and illegal sites.
The Minister can easily achieve a recipe for anarchy and dangerous community unrest and conflict by presiding over the shambolic mess that this policy has caused, but I hope that he will be able to announce to the House—I sense that there is concern among hon. Members on both sides because this is not a party-political issue but one of good local government and community relations—new policy initiatives to satisfy our constituents and travellers about the future.
It is interesting to note the views of traveller children. A report in the Telegraph and Argus, headlined
"We want to learn, plead the gipsy children",
states:
"The youngsters say that they want to be taught and are fed up of being moved off one site after another. 'We were born in Bradford and we want to have an education here,' said 12-year-old Mary Doran. 'It's not fair that we have to
234
keep on moving. We would like a permanent site so we can stay in one place and go to school. The way we are going we won't even get half an education.' Margaret Purcell, 12, said `We want to be taught but we don't even know if we'll be in school on Monday.' Mary and Margaret and their sisters, 11-year-olds Eileen and Kathleen, have been going to St. William's Roman Catholic First School, in Young Street, Bradford, for the past five months. 'We really enjoy it there, but some days we have to miss school because of all this moving,' said Mary. Before that, the children went to St. Patrick's RC First School in Wood Street, Manningham. The gipsies were served with an eviction order by Bradford Council to leave the land at Lower Rushton Road, in Thornbury. About eight caravans are now parked on an area of grassland between blocks of council flats on New Lane. Residents have complained to the council about the noise of the generators being used by the gipsy families. Richard Hoyle, 24 of Oban House said: 'My wife's complained to the council to get the generators turned down. We've got two young children and the noise at 4 am doesn't help.' Bradford Council has said shortage of sites for gipsies was a problem because the inner city Mary Street site was full. A spokesman said the council would be seeking another court order to move the gipsies on again."
So the merry-go-round goes on. The Minister told me and the people of Bradford in April when he granted designation that these problems would be resolved. They are not resolved and are unlikely to be, but I hope very much that when he replies to the debate he will be able to announce new policy initiatives that will give some hope to my constituents and to travellers that the merry-go-round in Bradford will end, that there will be a third permanent site, that improvements will be made to the Mary street and Esholt street sites, that there will be further private sites and that he will issue directions to Kirklees, Calderdale and Craven about making satisfactory progress towards permanent site provision in their local authority areas.
I hope that the Minister will begin to recognise that a national policy is necessary and a regional strategy vital if we are to reduce the problems that I am sure other hon. Members will rehearse today.
7.43 pm
Sir Hugh Rossi: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on the way in which he introduced the Environment Select Committee's report. The moderate and balanced way in which he did so was in the best of the traditions of the Committee. I am afraid that I cannot be as moderate or follow the traditions of my Committee.
My constituency has been subject to a plague of gipsies for about seven years. I call them gipsies, but they are not true Romanies. Possibly some of them are tinkers. They may be itinerant scrap metal merchants, but mostly they seem to be motorised squatters. That is probably the best term that I can use.
When officials of the Department of the Environment were giving evidence to my Committee, we asked them to give the definition of a gipsy under the terms of the legislation. Some years ago, in his report, Professor Wibberley criticised the fact that there was no hard and fast definition by which gipsies and people who were subject to the legislation could be readily identified. The officials' reply was, "People who live a nomadic way of life." I asked, "Does a nomadic way of life involve moving from one illegal site within the London borough of Haringey to another?" There was a shrug of the shoulders

235
and the answer, "Perhaps that is nomadic." That is not an adequate answer and is not a proper way for a Department to address its mind to a very serious social problem.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) mentioned the tensions when ordinary residents are faced with such a sudden visitation. In conscience, we cannot allow that to continue, for the sake of either the families who willingly accept or are forced into that way of life or the local communities who suddenly find them in their midst.
I have experienced the problem for several years. I have brought with me several files on the problems that I have had since the most recent general election. Since 1987, I have had within my constituency illegal squatting and trespassing by so-called gipsies at Alexandra palace, Wood Green common, Carlton lodge in Hornsey, Durnsford road lido, King's road car park in Wood Green, Pelham road in Wood Green, Lymington avenue in Wood Green, Russell avenue in Wood Green and Middle lane and Lightfoot road, Hornsey.
They may be the same gipsies who move from site to site or others who come and go. Nobody has been able to identify them except perhaps the travellers liaison officer, appointed by the London borough of Haringey, who directs them from site to site when the heat gets too hot on a site. It is of some interest that the council, which is reluctant to use its powers to remove trespassers from its property, seems to anticipate travellers moving from one site to another, because overnight a water stand pipe and portaloos suddenly appear, and lo and behold they remain there for several months.
As time is short, I do not want to go through the files for each site to show the problems that these visitations create. There is a pattern of filth, of danger to public health and hygiene, of rubble, of litter, of disorder, of children running wild, of a spate of housebreaking and of excrement where one would not expect to find it. One cannot wonder that, as a consequence, the local residents, who are ordinary, decent people, despair because nobody seems to be ready to help them to deal with the problem.
When these people first appear on a site, reference is made to the local police, who are asked whether they will exercise their powers under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. The police will not do so and they say that the Act is irrelevant to the problem. They say in their defence, "The Act gives us power of arrest where there is a trespass and those convicted are dealt with by the magistrates, but we have no power under the Act to remove the caravans. If we arrest somebody, we leave behind his wife and children, and who looks after them? When the man in released by the magistrates and returns to the site, what do we do? Do we arrest him for a continuing offence if he refuses to go?" The only answer to that problem must be for the police to have the power—and the willingness to use that power—to remove caravans when they are trespassing on other people's or public property, although that may seem somewhat draconian.
I said that I would not read through all my files and that I would merely give the House an idea of the problems. However, I want to read one letter to the House, which was written to me in March last year. The letter says:
"My mother and father are both retired. They live in a very pleasant council flat in Carlton Lodge, Lancaster Road, N4. They have been honest, hardworking people all their lives. Now, at a time when they should be enjoying themselves, their lives are being made miserable.
236
My father suffers from a bad heart and severe arthritis and his health is getting worse. The reason for this is outside his window. There are ten to twelve gipsy caravans and a number of trucks that have been picking up builders' rubbish and dumping it in the street. The gipsies have been living there for over three months now. The local milkman has stopped delivering milk and supplies to the residents in the flats as goods were being stolen from his van.
I went to visit my parents today because it was my mother's birthday and I just could not believe my eyes. The situation has become a lot worse since the last time I was there. It's obviously making life totally unpleasant for my parents and their neighbours. Apart from the obvious health hazard there must also be a potential fire hazard to the area. I believe that certain steps are being taken to remove the gipsies but if you could speed up the process I am sure it would benefit my father's health."
That seemed to be the end of the letter, but when I turned the page, I found something else written. This is what got me. The letter continued:
"The enclosed letter was drafted on Tuesday evening. On Wednesday morning my father had a stroke, followed by a heart attack. He died the following Sunday, Easter Day, at 3.10 am. My mother does not want the funeral procession to start from her own home as she is so ashamed of the state of the place and worried about what might happen to her relatives' cars while they are parked outside."
I cannot say that that letter is typical. Happily, not every constituent has suffered a bereavement as a result of gipsies. However, I have heard of cases of housebreaking and of pensioners who have suddenly found their front doors broken down and youngsters rampaging through the house. The police can do nothing because the old people cannot identify the particular individual, but the community knows where those people have come from even if there is not enough evidence to point the finger at any individual. The neighbours get to know such incidents as the bereavement and when old-age pensioners have had their front doors battered in or others have had their windows broken by half bricks. Some have had excrement deposited in their back garden and others live next door to an empty house that has become a general urinal and toilet for the encampment.
What effect does my hon. Friend the Minister think that all that must have on local residents? Is that a socially desirable situation? Does he think that people will sit down under this year in year out without, at some time or other, a fuse blowing? We shall then have a far more serious problem on our hands. The police say that they cannot act because the Public Order Act is not strong enough. The local authority refuses to act and seems to be encouraging the problem.
I have asked my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to take further powers to do something either when the local authority does not apply for designation—which would give it immediate powers to act—or so that a local authority can be taken to court if it does not exercise those powers once it has obtained designated status. That might answer the problems raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West. The local authority may be failing in its legal duty to its residents if it does not exercise the power, which designated status has given it, to have caravans removed.
I know from conversations with my hon. Friend the Minister that if Haringey were to apply tomorrow for designated status, it would find that it fulfilled all the criteria and that it would be granted such status. However, time after time, the borough refuses to apply for

237
designated status, so it does not have the powers to take action. It then shuffles off the responsibility to the local police.
Mr. Madden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Hugh Rossi: I shall not give way as we want to end this debate fairly quickly.
Yesterday, I received a telephone call from a constituent who said that, at 6 pm the day before, gipsies had settled
"on the field behind Tetherdown Primary School in Woodside Avenue. The field is used by the children from the school but is owned by a charity called The Central Foundation."
That night, two caravans appeared, after the padlock had been cut. The police asked the people to leave, but they refused to do so. By the morning, there were 20 caravans and by the evening, there were 30. I have ascertained that that remains the position. A house nearby had been broken into so that water could be obtained. Children from the site are breaking into the school. The children in the primary school are terrified. Several large dogs are roaming in the field where the gipsies are now encamped. What will my hon. Friend do about that, and what advice does he ask me to give my constituents who face that problem?
7.59 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: This is an important debate because it is no good shying away from the fact that there is a real problem. The guitar-strumming romany of popular myth and romantic illustration does not often appear in our towns and cities—instead, problems of sanitation and noise arise. Generators are sometimes used late at night when neighbouring lorry drivers or early-morning shift workers have to get up early. Children have to go to school after being disturbed at night. Those are the problems that arise when gipsies or travellers—however one describes them, they are people—camp close to houses. Many of them make their living from scrapping metal. Some burn the covering of copper wires to extract the copper, which produces stench and smoke, and there are other intrusions.
We must face the fact that this is a difficult problem and a real source of complaint for many people. However, it is not possible to solve that problem simply by moving groups of people in their caravans from one illegal site to another, like a continuing yo-yo around an area.
Another permanent site is needed in Bradford although several smaller sites, dispersed throughout the whole of the Bradford metropolitan district would be preferable. I see no reason why areas such as Ilkley, Bingley rural district or Rombalds ward, which have large open areas, could not be used. Some of the houses in Ilkley are out of sight of the road because the drive to the front door is so long. I am sure that the people in those areas would be anxious to play their part in a community contribution to solving the problem. People in Bradford would feel that there was fairness if the problem were dispersed throughout the whole of the Bradford metropolitan district, and not simply concentrated on two or three wards in the centre of the city.
I became involved in this matter when, about four years ago, the Labour-controlled Bradford council had a perfectly proper policy which, unfortunately, was not
238
implemented. Bradford's policy on travellers involved entering into consultation with and gaining the consent of people living in the vicinity of the land to be allocated for a site. About 30 families were virtually tipped on to a site called Staithgate lane at Low Moor in my constituency. I believe that that was a deliberate manoeuvre by council officials—perhaps one or two councillors were involved, but that is not absolutely clear—to try to secure that land for industrial development instead of for the transport museum for which it had been allocated. I suspect that it was planned to produce in the residents the response, "Get rid of the gipsies. We don't mind what the land is used for, as long as the gipsies are not on the site."
However, that did not work. The local people held a number of angry meetings and impressed upon the local authority the fact that it was unfair that that land should be used for a gipsy site when it was designated for a transport museum. As the area already contained two potentially high-risk chemical works, the people felt that they had burdens enough. However, to demonstrate their support for the use of the land for the purpose for which it was originally designated, the local people have held three successful annual transport galas to show that they have a community spirit, that they are not prepared to wash their hands of the whole affair, and that they want the land to be used for a commercial transport museum. I should declare an interest because I am the part-owner of a Bristol Lowdekka double-deck bus which I hope at some stage will be exhibited on that site when it is a museum.
Therefore, something positive emerged from the uproar. None the less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has pointed out, the two sites in Bradford are not in good condition. Some modernisation was started on the Mary street site, but that was halted. Virtual cliff edges were left where excavators had been used and where rubble had been piled 2 or 3 ft high. It would be very easy for children running around to break an arm or a leg or seriously injure themselves. Where it was possible—it is not easily possible in the middle of a pile of rubble—the travellers were houseproud and tidy and clearly took care of the site. There were some difficulties, which a small amount of money spent by the local authority could and should have eradicated, but that work was never done.
I hope that the Government will state that they are prepared to give additional grant aid for such work and that they will not leave it to hard-pressed local authorities such as Bradford, which have many competing priorities, to provide that money. As I have said, Bradford needs an additional site or preferably several small sites spread throughout the district. However, it should be noted that if Bradford is a designated area and the travellers cannot move on, they cannot go to Calderdale, Kirklees or Craven to find a site because there is none. During the last general election, the Conservative candidate was a Calderdale Conservative councillor. When taxed with this problem at a meeting, he said, "There is insufficient land—there is no flat land anywhere in Calderdale that is suitable for a gipsy site." That was not believed and it is not true.
Perhaps the Minister will explain today how he intends to encourage local authorities to take responsibility. Under the existing legislation, he has powers to issue a direction. I do not ask him to do so because I do not see why the bureaucratic powers of central Government should be imposed on local authorities, but my guess is

239
that, if central Government gave additional grant aid, over and above the grant aid to the actual sites, and held consultation meetings and gave financial encouragement, they would find more zeal forthcoming than has hitherto been shown by some local authorities, some of which are Labour-controlled and some Conservative.
Because of all the problems and strains, and because people do not want the travellers next to them—they do not mind where they go so long as it is somewhere else—it is easy to forget that these problems can be eradicated, as has happened in Leeds, which, after a great argument, now has a limited number of pitches. All local authorities need to play their part. I see no reason why the city of Bradford, virtually alone in our part of West Yorkshire, should carry the burden of providing sites for travellers.
It is easy to criticise the travellers, and people produce various reasons for doing so. People say that they have worked hard to buy their house—encouraged by the Government—that they have decorated and painted it, but they suddenly find a pile of rubble outside, noisy children running around and a great deal of confusion, dirt and doubt. Obviously, they feel concerned and, in many cases, very angry. That is why we need a number of permanent sites.
Permanent sites would also address the argument that travellers are not making any contribution to the community because they have illegal sites and do not pay any poll tax. The poll tax burden is falling heavily on people and makes them feel that disparity even more keenly. As travellers who use local authority sites have to pay rent, they contribute in that way to the community, and people feel that things are fairer, which in turn makes for better community relations.
There is a problem with their children. We must provide means for educating the children, and if they are moving about, great difficulties are bound to arise. In Sheffield, for example, there is a gipsy children's bus and a team of people going round providing education, but that represents only an attempt to solve the problem. I understand that Sheffield has about the same number, perhaps fewer, permanent caravan sites than Bradford. In other words, although that area is doing well in respect of education, in terms of sites it is making only average provision.
The children have a right to education. The fact that they are born into a nomadic way of life, however much one might criticise that, should not prevent them from being educated. They exist, and wishing the problem away will not solve it. Nor will it provide education for those youngsters. We must encourage the establishment of permanent sites so that links can be established between the schools and the children, so that the children can feel part of society rather than feeling, as many of them do—and as many of the general public feel—part of a continuing battle. If that is the attitude of the children, it will be their attitude as teenagers and will continue into adult life, which will mean more running battles between residents and travellers, the police and travellers, and local authorities and travellers, with scarcely a sympathetic spark anywhere to be seen.
In encouraging the children, we must provide nursery education and first, middle and senior schools so that such talent and ability as exists among the families may be garnered and used for the benefit of the community as a whole. As other hon. Members have said, that cannot be
240
achieved if there is a continuing shift from one school to another, so that teachers never build up a relationship with the children.
A teacher recently said to me, referring to travellers' children and the children of families in difficulties, "You can see them coming down the drive, you can help them, but you know that within a day or two they will be off and you are unlikely ever to see them again." As a result, alienation and separation from society is established. We must do something about that.
Although there is antagonism between travellers and the community at large, for the reasons that I have outlined, I believe that people generally have a measure of compassion and recognise that we must provide for the education of the children as part of our general responsibilities. Another permanent site is needed in Bradford, as well as sites in the surrounding local authorities that I have mentioned.
I wrote to a neighbouring local authority urging its leader to investigate, and start work on, the provision of a site, and I released the letter to the press. The local evening newspaper used the headline, "MP urges gipsy site." The hon. Member who represents the area, whom I had not been able to contact with the good news that I was urging the local authority to provide a gipsy site, was inundated with calls asking, "Why are you claiming that additional gipsy sites must be provided?" The hon. Member was able to point out that it was not that hon. Member who had made the comment. Even so, the hon. Member agreed with me that the local authority should be making provision for gipsies, for the reasons that I have given.
There is a genuine altruism in all of this. We do not get many votes from gipsies, because they are unlikely to be on electoral registers, although some of them are, and we are criticised if we do not take action on behalf of permanent residents confronted with illegal gipsy sites. The fact that Parliament is discussing this issue is creditable, however, because in talking about it we are bringing pressure to bear on the Government to provide more assistance so that local authorities can tackle the problem. Let us face the fact that the problem will not go away. Let us also have a mutual respect for differing ways of life as between the permanent population, who want to live in houses, who like their cities and areas and who do not wish to move, and the tiny fraction of the population who live a nomadic life. Somehow, somewhere, we must find accommodation for all concerned, for the sake of everybody.
8.14 pm
Dr. John G. Blackburn: I wish to pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for the way in which he introduced the Select Committee report.
One could not but be moved by the dramatic content of the speech, which was well received, of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). His remarks will be long remembered in the House.
My contribution is on behalf of the west midlands. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) correctly said that this is not a Bradford but a national matter, as has been reflected in the debate. We are discussing a national problem and we are looking forward, with differing degrees of confidence, to the Minister's response.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) is here because I know that he shares

241
my view that this social problem—this plague, as it has been called—is as relevant in the west midlands as it is anywhere else. I should be the first to support the concept of special officers able to deal with the problems of the itinerants in that, in the long term, they may come into society, particularly from the point of view of helping the children.
Having said that, I must add that in the Himley and Kingswinford areas of my constituency I am continually, along with local councillors, involved in the problem of itinerants. Although the local authority, at considerable expense, often takes action, I have known of many cases where itinerants have been moved and then, tragedy of tragedies, have gone on to private land. Some small farmers in the area have been confronted with the problem. It is an expensive exercise to arrange through the private sector to have itinerants removed from private property.
Against that background, I hope that something positive and constructive can come out of this debate for the people involved. The Minister has a solemn responsibility. I urge him to review the situation, particularly in relation to the growing problem in the west midlands of itinerants going on to private land and the local authorities, understandably, being reluctant to become involved in evictions.
I support designated sites. They are dotted around the west midlands, particularly in the Wolverhampton and Dudley areas.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to the voice of the entire House of Commons speaking in unison on this important problem, which is a social problem now but which could easily become more devastating.
8.19 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: I have been involved in the matter of gipsies for a considerable time. In the community that I represented as a local councillor, there was a gipsy population. I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) that dealing with gipsies is a social problem that should be addressed nationally rather than locally.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) enlightened the House on the position in Bradford. Before the Government abolished West Yorkshire county council, it was responsible for providing gipsy sites, but with the demise of that county council, proposals to provide more sites were put back for a considerable time. The local authorities had to pick up the problem, in addition to all the other problems created by the demise of the county council.
I thought that Ministers responsible for abolishing the county councils would address the serious problem of providing gipsy sites before doing so. That did not take place, so the problem was aggravated. In West Yorkshire we are now witnessing the problems that have been picked up by the district councils. We must consider provision of gipsy sites seriously and in depth because it is a social problem.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West asked the House to speak in unison, but I do not support all the comments made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green
242
(Sir H. Rossi). Not all travellers fit the description that he gave. Some people come into that category, but it would be misleading and wrong to persuade the House that all travellers fit the description.
In my early days, some genuine gipsies bought old property in the town where I lived. They wanted to settle as members of the community. The menfolk worked for the local authority refuse collection department. They were some of the best workers that the department had. They turned out in all weathers, they were always on time, and they were regular attenders. The children attended the local schools. The conditions that those people lived in were appalling, so the local authority decided to house them in council houses. A third and fourth generation of those families is now settled in the community.
If people want to take part in a society and settle in it, local authorities should be in a position to help them. However, under this Government that help is constantly withdrawn or reduced because local authorities are denied the opportunity to provide accommodation for gipsies. No private landlord will help them. I hope that the Minister will explain how local authorities can provide sites and make sure that they are maintained.
In my constituency there is an official site for gipsies, but because of constraints on local authority expenditure it was transferred to a private operator who promised to improve the site and provide facilities for several caravans if he could include some spaces for permanent caravans. That was agreed, but there was a gross deterioration in the maintenance of the site. It changed hands on more then one occasion. We must not only provide sites, but see that they are maintained, that facilities are provided and that the people appreciate the facilities. Without that support and cover, there will always be problems, no matter how many sites local authorities provide. Unless there are adequate resources to maintain sites and to provide back-up and advice for travellers, there will be constant arguments and rancour among groups of people in the community.
I doubt that provision for creating and maintaining gipsy sites is included in the formula for arriving at the standard spending assessments of local authorities. I doubt that the Minister and his colleagues consider the resources needed for gipsy sites when they assess the expenditure that local authorities can attain. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong. I fear that I am correct because the formula for assessing local government expenditure does not refer to gipsy sites.
We must also consider illegal camping. The site to which I referred is on the edge of some common land. We are trying to ensure that the common land remains available to local people and is protected. I am waiting for the Government to introduce the necessary legislation to protect the common land. People park on the common land, which creates problems in the community. We need legislation to protect the common land. During the past three of four years, the Government have promised to introduce legislation, but we are still waiting for it. We wish to debate any such legislation and the protection of common land.
The gipsy problem throws up many issues. Another part of my constituency that was affected is in the Leeds city area. Motor travellers settled on land that was previously arable. The whole area was covered by caravans. The people who settled collected old tyres. They were paid for the disposal of those tyres, but all they did

243
was to dispose of them on the land around the caravans. There was a vast area of disused tyres and genuine concern that someone would set those tyres ablaze, which would have caused a tremendous problem. Leeds city council cleared the site of the caravans and the tyres, which cost its ratepayers a great deal of money.
Local authorities should be given the opportunity to provide legal, proper sites with all the facilities and necessary back-up services to address the problem in a proper manner.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the advent of the poll tax and the strain on local authority expenditure, it will be difficult for local authorities to meet the provision he advocates? Those authorities will be hard pressed to maintain existing services without venturing to provide more sites and paying for their maintenance. Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution lies with central Government, who should provide better grant assistance for the maintenance, development and improvement of gipsy sites, rather than leaving it in the hands of local authorities?
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has pre-empted some of my argument.
If we do not address local government finance, we cannot solve the problem. The introduction of the poll tax is significant. The Select Committee report refers to Doncaster, which has provided an additional gipsy sites. That authority is poll tax-capped and, despite the fact that it has provided a site for gipsies—I am sure that it wanted to provide such a site—with all the necessary facilities and back-up services, the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided that £10 million must be taken out of its budget. How can Ministers or any other Conservative Member say that Doncaster district council has an obligation and a right to provide such sites, if the first thing the Secretary of State does is to cut the amount of money necessary to sustain those sites? If that is not hypocritical. I do not know what is.
If we accept the report and agree that local authorities have a responsibility to provide sites for gipsies as well as meeting their educational and other requirements, it is wrong for the Minister to say that authorities that are providing those sites must cut their expenditure just because he considers that that expenditure is too great.
If the House is sincere and if we want unity across the Chamber, we must tell the Secretary of State and his lieutenants that it is wrong to tell local authorities that have provided in their budget for gipsies to limit the amount of money that they can spend on such facilities.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am extremely concerned about adequate facilities for gipsies and travellers, but surely there is a defect in the logic of the hon. Gentleman's case. He appears to be saying that, if a local authority is making good, proper provision for gipsies and travellers, it is impossible that it could be grossly overspending in other ways. He has argued that Ministers should not cap such authorities for gross over-expenditure in other matters when, within proper expenditure, they have provided for gipsies and traveller families. The hon. Gentleman must accept that that cannot be logically consistent.
Mr. O'Brien: How anyone in this Chamber or in Marsham street can say what Doncaster district council
244
should provide for gipsy caravan sites, education or any other services, I do not know. The people who should make such decisions are the people of Doncaster. The quicker we realise that, the better it will be for the provision of the necessary services for gipsies or any other person in that area.
Mr. Cryer: The truth is that the cap covers all expenditure. Although a local authority is given an opportunity to cut its expenditure, that local authority will be under pressure to cut every service. There will be strong local pressure not to cut the provision for education or housing if there are other suitable areas in which cuts can be made. Inevitably the provision for gipsies will be subject to greater pressure than any other once an authority is faced with forced cuts imposed by the Government.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has spelt out admirably the dilemma faced by authorities that are poll tax-capped, particularly Doncaster.
I am conscious that, before May this year, when the Tories were in control, a constant stream of Ministers visited Bradford.
Mr. Cryer: It did the railway service a power of good.
Mr. O'Brien: How much time did Ministers from the Department of the Environment or from any other Department spend talking about gipsy sites in Bradford? Did Ministers tell the Tories of Bradford that they should provide sites for those people?
Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend has asked some pertinent questions. The Conservatives came to power in Bradford in September 1988 on the back of hysteria whipped up against gipsies and travellers and against the backdrop of a controversy motivated purely for party political reasons. The designation came in April 1990, but there is no evidence of any action by the Tory council or by Ministers who weekly visited Bradford. That is why I was forced to ask the Minister certain questions. I hope that I shall receive some answers.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has explained how things were when the Tories were in control of Bradford. Promises were made in Bradford, but perhaps it was one of those times when someone said, "Read my lips," and everything changed. Fortunately, the constitution of the council in Bradford has changed and I am sure that progress will be made on the social problems to which hon. Members have referred.
How often does the Minister, his colleagues or any of the civil servants in the Department of the Environment discuss the plight of gipsies with the Gypsy Council or its representatives? If such consultation could be established, the point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green could be put on the agenda. The problems that have been raised and the concern that has been expressed could be put to the council and debated with the fervour shown by the hon. Gentleman. Without such dialogue, the issues will not be solved. I accept that there is a social problem, and the sooner we have some form oF consultation with the people who need help and assistance, the better it will be.
The Select Committee's report refers to evidence of differing views between police forces and local authorities on the appropriate circumstances in which section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 should be used in cases of

245
gipsies' trespass. Differing views between police forces and local authorities make it difficult to resolve the problem. The report says that the Home Secretary is expected to report towards the end of 1990. If we are to solve the social problem that has been outlined tonight, the House should have a further opportunity to debate the issue when that report is published and when we know what the Home Secretary intends to do to try to reconcile the different views of the local authorities and the various police forces.
I hope that we shall not walk away from tonight's debate saying that the Home Secretary will report and leaving it at that. There is a lot that can be done. The responsibility is with the Minister and the Secretary of State and I hope that they will not walk away from that. If they do, that would be the biggest sin that could be committed against the very people who need help. When I refer to the people who need help, I do not mean just the gipsies but our constituents as well who are affected by the problems created by gipsies parking in their areas.
I appeal to the Minister to take this issue seriously and to give some assistance to local authorities.
8.43 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The quality of tonight's debate has been high. Let me stir a few memories. The House is often reminded of the appalling massacre of Jews in what they termed the holocaust in Germany. The House is less often reminded that Nazi Germany also took into the concentration camps and murdered the gipsies.
I was elected to the House in 1960, but only once have I heard a Member stand up in the House and speak with pride of his gipsy ancestry. That was Sir John Arbuthnot who, in a debate in this House in the 1960s, speaking from the Conservative Benches, said: "I am a diddikoi." I respected him for that.
The legislation is inadequate for those in need and for those who are suddenly afflicted by the arrival of people whom the public term gipsies but who are not Romanies. The Romany race—its people call themselves a race—is deeply resentful of the fact that many people who do not have the disciplines that they seek to impose on their community, their children, their dogs and their way of life, are termed gipsies. I make those remarks in passing.
I think that it is a representative truth to say that it is Conservative Governments who have tried to deal with the problem by legislation—legislation which the Select Committee's report has rightly revealed to be inadequate.
But the truth of the matter has been revealed in many excellent speeches tonight. If families are continually moved on, the children will have no proper, consistent education. I have knowledge of that in my constituency. I am proud that schools in my constituency take pains to give special attention to the needs and problems of the children of travellers. But a particular problem arises on the capitation fees of those schools, because the numbers are taken at certain times of the year which do not correspond with the times when the travellers are there. Therefore, there is gross under-funding. Primary schools may have a 30 per cent. increase in their numbers as a result of an influx of travellers' children for which there is no financial provision, because the children are not there on the day of the count.
246
Those are factors for which any competent Government must make provision. I do not say "take into account" because two of the most debased phrases in politics are "taking into account" and "make allowances for"—"paying the full cost of" is the currency that I am in business to deal with.
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is another side to the problem in schools, of which I have evidence in my constituency? The arrival of 25 travellers' children effectively brought a primary school in Chertsey to a halt when they engaged in running battles in the playground. That school did its best to provide education, but it was incapable of doing so.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that we are in agreement, not in disagreement. My right hon. Friend has raised another problem—that of a sudden arrival.
I was talking of resources. If the resources do not exist, the problem is still worse. But in some areas the arrival of travellers' children is seasonal and predictable. If their arrival is not predictable, the position is even worse. But if the arrival is predictable, the resources should be made available to deal with them. Those resources should not be on the normal capitation basis, because many of those children need teaching on a one-to-one basis.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
They need one-to-one teaching if they are not to disrupt the classes. That is not because they have a greater dose of original sin than other children, but because they have a lower threshold of boredom. Unless they can perceive the relevance of what they are being taught to their expectation of their livelihood, their boredom becomes disruptive.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend is a little unjust in berating the Government about capitation, because the formulas are drawn up by each local education authority and vary greatly from one part of the country to another. My own council, Hertfordshire, provides special assistance for schools which have to take travelling children. That takes the form of extra teaching and equipment and more resources for running costs such as the cost of paper. Perhaps my hon. Friend should talk to his local education authority.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Unfortunately, local education authorities can spend only the resources that they have at their disposal. If central Government do not make available significant extra resources for local authorities which have these massive extra expenses, my hon. Friend is simply asking local education authorities to rob Peter to pay Paul. These expenses cannot be met from existing resources.
Many hon. Members wish to speak, and for that reason I shall not cover the whole spectrum of these problems, except to say, first, that the Conservative Government who legislated for a mandatory requirement to provide permanent sites were right. Without permanent sites there cannot be the facilities that go with them, and provision for education. We must accept that wherever those

247
permanent sites are located they will damage, if not destroy, the value of adjacent properties. That has been apparent throughout the debate.
When a site is chosen it adversely affects one councillor's bailiwick and the rest of the councillors are heartily grateful that their areas are not affected. Therefore, it is probable that the county council—not now the planning authority—which is responsible for choosing the site will, when it negotiates with the district council, find the majority of the district councillors saying, "Thank God, it has not been visited on my bailiwick. Yes, I will vote for it whatever the merits or lack of them." They will do that whether or not the local primary school can accept the children from the site. That is why I impress on my hon. Friend the Minister the fact that there should always be a public inquiry before a decision of this kind is made. That is the only way in which all the issues can be discussed. The damage to the total savings that people have put into their houses is one such real issue that has been brought out in the debate. Other issues are the availability of education, medical resources and transport, which can be properly aired in a public inquiry.
My principal point is that, when a site is chosen, because of the implications which have been so well illuminated in the debate, there should always be a public inquiry before planning permission is granted. It is too severe a test to expect the members of a planning authority, who are relieved that a site is not to be visited on their bailiwick, to decide against the interests of the one councillor who is averse to it. That is my message to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has a most difficult and taxing job to do in this respect. Clearly, none of us envy him.
8.54 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I am one of the Members for the county of Surrey, which has recently been directed by the Department of the Environment to provide another 190 official pitches. I do not object to that direction, and I have publicly said so, because it is plain that we need some system of official pitches, as some gipsies, travellers or whatever nomenclature one wishes to apply, want permanent sites.
I have taken the trouble to visit sites in Surrey—one official series of pitches at Claygate in my constituency and another in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The gipsies there were well organised, and by and large seemed responsible. They were looking after the site themselves, in the sense that they had appointed their own hierarchy to make sure that certain tasks were carried out.
Given that the gipsy or traveller problem will not just disappear, I want to put on record before saying some less complimentary things, the fact that the gipsies that I met on the official sites were not likely to cause a great deal of actual harm to the local community, even though the process of assimilation is difficult, especially with schooling, which has been mentioned. Apparently, it is the unknown on both sides which causes tension, but certainly the difference of habit present a serious problem when trying to maintain the normal routine and discipline of school life in the face of an influx of travellers from the permanent sites.
Another difficulty is that there are insufficient permanent sites, certainly in Surrey, for the numerous
248
populations of travellers. It is reckoned that there are about 150 to 200 caravans illegally parked each day in the county. The problem for my constituents and for those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), who is beside me, is that those itinerants have no responsibility to the community which they are temporarily parked.
Hon. Members have eloquently given examples of what has happened in their constituencies, and I do not have time to go into much detail. In many cases, temporary stays or in some cases stays of some weeks cause chaos in the community. There is danger from dogs, a perceived danger to health and the travellers call at houses and appear to threaten residents who are going about their normal business. There is disruption because gipsies undertake business practices that no other citizen would ever be allowed on such sites. Travellers often attempt to take advantage of gullible people in the area in conducting their business.
My constituents and those of my colleagues are justifiably angry about the disgraceful rubbish that is often left by gipsies—excrement has been mentioned several times, and it is a genuine problem. The cost of removing rubbish when the gipsies leave is horrendous. There are not just problems of site maintenance; the real cost is that of clearing up after the gipsies have gone. We often have to put up protection against their return. On the Old Common in Cobham in my constituencyy, it is reckoned that the council spent £10,000 putting in a ditch to try to prevent the return of the gipsies after a particularly prolonged stay.
I shall be brief, because other colleagues wish to speak. We do not have sufficient powers under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. I have enormous sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister who is to sum up a debate in which impassioned presentations have been made, but the legislation on the statute book simply satisfies nobody. It does not satisfy people who have to deal with the problems of illegal parking; it does not even satisfy councils that have achieved designated status, because even when they have achieved that status, they still face legal difficulties in moving people on. It is not a simple process.
As the chief executive of Guildford borough council, in my constituency, said, once designation has been obtained, it is not simple, cheap and quick to move people on. Therefore, I do not believe that there is sufficient incentive to obtain designation, given all the politically charged problems involved in identifying official sites. I know all about those because another village, Claygate, in my constituency contains all the pitches that presently exist in Elmbridge borough. Clearly, residents of that village think that others should contribute to the provision of pitches.
Guildford has provided 17 pitches, but it needs a further 13 to be designated. Elmbridge has provided 16 pitches, but it needs 14 more. There is a dispute between Elmbridge and the Department about whether a group of privately provided pitches should have been included for the purpose of that count, but I shall not go into that this evening.
This problem is not going to get easier and has all the signs of getting worse. It causes great concern to law-abiding citizens, not only when their territory is invaded, but when they are in fear of it being invaded.
When itinerants in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) eventually get moved on, they come into mine. I

249
have a problem in Hurst park, Molesey, in my constituency that I am sure will recur. If itinerants are moved on, they will move to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). It is a continual problem and we must have tougher powers even with designation—there is no point in fudging that. I know that the Department does not approve of comparisons with the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulations Act 1984—private legislation—which gave more obviously controlled powers to councils in Epsom and Ewell. That Act cannot be dismissed as applying merely because the Derby is held there, but it may hold lessons that can be extended to wider areas.
We must clarify the Public Order Act 1986 for the police, who constantly say that they do not like to intervene. We must clarify the system of using bailiffs, because there is often insufficient time for them to get round the sites, even when directions have been given, and this causes delays. There was such a case in my constituency.
I shall cut short my remarks but I do not wish my brevity to be interpreted as a lack of detailed argument in favour of the Government gripping the problem. I would not want my hon. Friend the Minister to have to take part in another debate like this one—he has enough problems in other spheres. I hope that he has the good fortune to stay in his current post. Then, unless the legislation is changed, we shall all be debating the issue again in the next Session.
9.3 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: I shall make only a few brief remarks, because other hon. Members wish to speak. I apologise for having arrived late from another meeting, but it was absolutely essential.
Before I became a full-time politician, I was an assistant director of social services, heading a research division. I remember the day that the director called me in and asked me to appoint someone to help to deal with the gipsies. That was at Durham county council, and knowing my political affiliation, the House will see the advantage of my having responsibility for the gipsy population.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) mentioned the threat to and murder of people in Nazi Germany. Some of those with whom I have to deal have felt under threat for much of the time. There are differences among the travellers in any population. There are those who are poor and others who are rich; some are well educated, others are illiterate and uneducated; some are super-business men, others find difficulty eking out a living.
Durham county council carried out its task of providing for gipsies in a sensible, pragmatic and planned way. All hon. Members have experience of the problems of planning when, for example, people say that they agree that there should be sites for gipsies—but in someone else's area, not theirs. One of Durham's first actions was to adopt a policy of non-harassment. The councillors had some difficulty in agreeing to that, and some of them found it even more difficult to carry out. However, they united behind the policy and it has worked.
Following the Cripps report, the council realised that there were advantages to providing adequate sites for
250
gipsies. If those sites were well prepared with toilets, sheds and so on, the council found that, in general, the gipsies respected them. That was some 13 or 14 years ago, yet some areas still do not provide adequate sites for gipsies.
I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Tiverton, who referred to the problems of education and the effect of travellers on local schools. Durham carefully studied the possibility of itinerant teachers teaching children on location at gipsy sites rather than in the local schools. The smaller villages with smaller schools cannot always cope with the travellers, who can become a large part of the local population.
I remember a discussion that I had with Hughie Smith, the founder-chairman of the National Gypsy Council. Hon. Members will be aware that, from time to time, people allege that the travellers are not real gipsies. Hughie Smith always says, "A real gipsy pinches the milk out of your tea." People try to disparage travellers by pretending that one group of travellers are real gipsies, but the others are just drop-outs—people who do not want to live in a normal society and who take advantage of the protection for gipsies. That is ludicrous and stupid.
I spent some considerable time talking to gipsies. On one occasion, I attended court following trouble with a lurcher dog which had been worrying sheep. What shook some of the councillors was when I took them to see some of the gipsy caravans. I have always lived in a house, but I must tell hon. Members that the knick-knacks, furniture, silver and other bits and pieces in some of those caravans vastly outweighs the number of such items in my bungalow in Peterlee. Some gipsies are extremely wealthy and some of their caravans are palatial. One had a bigger bar than the Chairman of my Committee had ever seen.
Preparation of sites throughout the country should be speeded up. One hon. Member said that gipsies want to settle. It is true that some do, but we have to provide sites for those who do not. Some gipsies can earn a living only by moving around.
I do not doubt that the Minister is interested in this issue. I know that he took a sympathetic view on the poll tax, and I have no doubt that he will take a similar view of gipsy sites. It would help if local authorities speeded up provision of sites. Some are more dilatory than others.
A policy of non-harassment is vital. We keep talking about gipsies as though there were a different species, but they are human beings and they have to be treated as such. As a group, perhaps because they have lived like that for centuries, they have chosen a way of life that hon. Members would not want. They prefer being itinerant to living in a bungalow like mine in Peterlee. That is merely a cultural difference. We must also consider gipsy children's education, which is essential.
9.11 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome this debate on an important and politically sensitive subject, which has been pushed to the margins of local and central government for far too long. The issue may be prominent for lawyers and theorists, but too often in practice, deeds have fallen far short of intentions.
As so many hon. Members have done, I could also spend 10 minutes expounding the problems that gipsies cause. My constituency is a traditional area for gipsies, and they cause some problems, but a large proportion of

251
them are law-abiding citizens, who keep their caravans well and make a genuine contribution to the communities in which they live.
There are problems, but they have been caused by lack of firm Government policy and a legislative framework which is too diffuse—reactive rather than proactive—and which pushes gipsy problems on to local councils, which are not best placed to deal with them because of political sensitivities.
I come from a county that is identified in the Select Committee report as one of the laggards. Hereford and Worcester county council is said to be performing badly, despite the fact that it has 157 council and 70 private sites—more than any other county in the east or west midlands.
In the Wyre Forest, at Stourport, we have provision for 56 caravans—the largest provision in the best-providing county. Despite that, we cannot achieve designation. To be fair, the county council has tried for it, and that has produced some justifiable resentment. Moreover, the Hereford and Worcester county council has 550 out of 1,406 caravans—a far greater number than the national average—on unauthorised encampments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) said, the national problem is not likely to improve much, and it may well get worse.
The number of caravans is rising all the time: in 1978 there were 8,520; by 1990 that had increased to 11,544—and we have not even taken into account the factor that the National Gypsy Council mentioned in its latest report, which is the increasing numbers of European travellers who are likely to come here after 1992.
Although there has been some progress in getting more people on to authorised sites, the evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. Dudding—I feel sorry for him, having heard the drubbing that he has been given—shows that it will take 25 years to clear the backlog and put gipsies on authorised sites, in the process tackling what Mr. Dudding called an intractable problem. Once we have put the gipsies on authorised sites, we must get the sites and amenities up to a reasonable standard.
Three major problems emerge: first, the political insensitivities that surround the issue. Too often, because there are no significant planning guidelines for the allocation of gipsy sites, public inquiries are called for. If an authority wants to set up a new—permanent or temporary—authorised gipsy encampment and has to hold a public inquiry for each one, we shall never make the sort of progress that we need to make to eliminate the problem even within 25 years.
Secondly, the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which I understand was a private Member's measure, was remarkable in that it looked at policy in a wholly demand-led fashion. Because of that, there is never any certainty about whether there will be designation. My county council thought that it would get designation and was told that it would, but having counted the numbers six months later, it discovered that the figures on the basis of which it was trying to get designation were out of date, so none was forthcoming—
Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is a moving staircase.
Mr. Coombs: Indeed.
252
There are also uncertainties in respect of the powers available to the police under the Public Order Act 1986, although I hope that the Home Department will deal with that problem later this year.
Most importantly, a demand-led policy leads to catch 22: the more virtuous the local authority, the more gipsies come to its area—the honey-pot effect—so the further away designation recedes.
All these problems are exacerbated by the fact that one is dealing with a mobile and undefined population. The National Gypsy Council correctly says that, to deal with the problem in the short or medium term, we must come up with some definition of a gipsy.
This is an intractable problem, not helped by the fact that the legislative framework within which we try to deal with it is weak and diffuse.
The third problem stemming from the legislative framework is that it provides the ultimate opportunity for buck-passing. The Government do the designations; the county council decides where sites go within the county area; then the district council faces the administrative and operational problems of carrying out the policy. Small wonder, then, that Hereford and Worcester county council has not achieved designation, despite trying to for 18 years.
I suggest a number of answers. First, we have suffered because we have taken an unduly paternalistic and public-sector approach to the provision of sites for gipsies.
The National Gypsy Council should be given far more responsibilities for site management and negotiating site acquisitions. That would lead to sites that had been authorised by the National Gypsy Council. It would provide competition for public sector sites.
There is great merit in the National Gypsy Council's suggestion that, if we are to tackle the problem meaningfully and decisively, there should be a national gipsy commission to find sites, and which could also be used as a conduit for either central Government or housing association funding. The Commission would have a role to play in site improvement. It would provide greater impetus for tackling the problem.
We need a better definition of "gipsy". I like the National Gypsy Council's suggestion that it should be
"persons of a nomadic tradition of life."
The council believes that a gipsy ought to be able to show that he has followed a nomadic tradition of life for at least two generations before he can call himself a gipsy. By that means, we should be able to cap the potential demand, given the normal demographic and family group factors, for gipsy facilities.
We must also rationalise the operational responsibilities for gipsies. I do not mind whether that is at district or county council level. I should prefer the county council to have the responsibility for both identifying and operating gipsy sites. It would overcome the problem of a local councillor who votes against anything, come what may, because it would affect his own patch. If the matter were dealt with at county council level, it would be administratively simpler and more objective.
In order to get away from the demand-led provision of sites for those who reside in or resort to an area, there ought to be another defence. There is a far greater number of caravan sites than the population justifies in my area. The administrative body ought to be able to say that, if the "resort or reside" demand-led policy is strictly adopted, it

253
would have to provide far more caravan sites than is justified on a strict pro rata population basis. That ought not to happen.
I agree with those hon. Members who have said that tougher enforcement powers following designation, provided that we can speed up the number of permanent gipsy sites by the means that I have suggested, are vital. Enforcement powers should be available, not just for gipsies who happen to be in an area where they are unauthorised and who thereby are causing a nuisance. If we gave the National Gypsy Council more responsibility for the management of both its own and council sites, there would be stricter enforcement powers for sites that are not properly managed. Bad management of sites causes many of the problems of which residents complain.
It is a difficult problem. The Minister has to deal with the problem virtually at third hand through the county and district councils. I do not envy the Minister's task. That applies irrespective of the political colour of the Government. The law needs to be reformed. I hope that the Government will consider my proposals seriously.
9.24 pm
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, and I appreciate that other hon. Members have constrained their speeches to allow everyone who wishes to participate in the debate to do so.
I wish to make three points which have been dealt with by a number of hon. Members and to reinforce some of the arguments that have already been aired. I shall concentrate on the numbers of vans, gipsies and travellers that have been designated; the inability of existing legislation to allow the removal of travellers illegally camped on land, and on the permanence and luxury of the vans in which people live, as that affects future numbers, as was spelt out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs).
The numbers are increasing rather than diminishing. The 1968 legislation was probably based on an expectation that numbers were static or declining but were certainly unlikely to increase. How clear is the Department as to whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing? If we have a 25-year plan for dealing with current numbers, if those numbers are allowed to increase—and how can we prevent it?—we have an insoluble problem which negates all the work and all the money that is being spent.
My second point concerns the luxury and comfort of the vans. This means that the way of life of people who have not considered themselves nomads in the past can be more readily considered as an alternative and as a cheap form of living by those who live in permanent housing and pay for all the responsibilities carried by everyone else in the community. That must be tackled, because it affects the numbers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest suggested one way in which, through the efforts of the National Gypsy Council, a capping of those numbers could be considered. That suggestion needs following up and pursuing and unless we do that, we shall not find a long-term answer.
Thirdly, the law seems to be unsatisfactorily weighted in favour of those using illegal gipsy sites. They can appeal against High Court injunctions for their removal for a
254
considerable time. In this way they continue to occupy a site for two, three, four or more years, to the great detriment of people living locally, whether in owner-occupied or rented housing. Their lives are being ruined in the way so dramatically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). Although my constituency has not suffered the same abuse of individuals and property, there is no doubt that my constituents have the same fears and concerns. They see the local authority as having no powers to remove the illegal encampment, however much it wishes to do so.
Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not always that one-sided? I remember an incident involving an illegal site. Thinking that there might be some difficulty, I took someone with me in my car and then went to meet residents of local houses. I assure the hon. Gentleman that those residents, not the itinerants, were trying to turn my car over.
Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly proper point, and I accept that it is a valid example. It highlights the points that have been made that such incidents can produce social tensions, and that must be addressed by the changes in legislation. It is little wonder that the residents of those houses felt angry because, as they perceived it, a group of travellers were illegally encamped, yet the law and authority had no power to overcome the problem. That does terrible damage to the law and the standing of the law. We should not be prepared to tolerate that.
A site in my constituency was owned by a gipsy family, on which one caravan was legally parked. The family allowed other members of the "family"—30 caravans—to park on it. They sold plots of the land to members of the family. That was illegal, but they are arguing about title to ownership and can appeal against any action and remain there pending the outcome of those appeals. I am aware that local authorities—I hope that this will not occur in this instance, but I know that it has occurred elsewhere, because I have some knowledge of Cambridgeshire—have done deals to allow part of the site to be used permanently for caravans as a way of solving the problem for the whole of the site. Completely averse to any long or short-term planning arrangements, a permanent site is established quite illegally because there seems to be no other alternative.
Ministers cannot allow that to go on. We need urgently to change the law; and I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) that, if action does not follow this debate, we shall be back with more debates on this fundamental and vital issue. We hope for change, and that we shall receive a positive response from my hon. Friend the Minister.
9.33 pm
Mr. George Howarth: For the most part, this has been an appropriately civilised debate. Subjects that could have been dealt with emotively because of local difficulties that right hon. and hon. Members experience were dealt with sensitively, and the House and those who take an interest in the subject will be grateful for that.
The Minister must be the most unenvied hon. Member and probably the most unenvied Minister of any Department. Almost every hon. Member said that they did

255
not envy his task. Given some of the other responsibilities that have been part of his portfolio in the past few months, I can understand that he is far from envied, and perhaps justifiably so.
I am a former member of the Select Committee on the Environment. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) presented a typically forensic, accurate and intelligent approach to the subject and he did not understate the case. It was put effectively, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee, pointed out. He deserves the congratulations of the House on that task having been so accomplished.
I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who clearly represent an area that has a long-standing problem. They resisted the temptation for a media reaction to the resolution of that problem and they talked with great sensitivity and great understanding of the problems in the city of Bradford. They were a great credit to their constituents in the handling of the matter.
The debate has not been party political as this is not a party political issue. However, to take up the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, it is unfortunate when a political party in any part of the country uses this issue as a stick with which to beat another party at election time. I hope that such heat can be taken out of the subject, as it appears not to have been on at least one occasion in Bradford. It is not constructive, it does not lead anywhere, it builds up false expectations and, in the long run, it is not a helpful way of dealing with the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) brought to bear on the discussion an understanding unequalled in the House. I cannot think of another hon. Member who has had professional responsibility for dealing with these problems. Although it did not lead to his car being turned over, that is not an irregular event and on occasions, it has been more his problem than anybody else's. He brought a particular experience to the debate, which was useful and helpful. I cannot cover all the speeches in great detail because of the restricted time available, and I am anxious not to overrun the time allocated to me.
The problem is not getting any smaller, as various hon. Members pointed out. The number of authorised encampments in 1981–-to take a reference point—was about 4,201); there are no more than 4,500 now. Any progress has been small and has not eaten into the problem. The consequences of not dealing with the demand for places have been outlined by other hon. Members, but they may need underlining further.
Maternity Alliance, which has not been mentioned so far, is not a party political body and is concerned mainly with the problems of childbirth and motherhood. It has highlighted the problem for travellers in securing safe stopping places during childbirth. Apparently, there has been an acknowledged problem—not a huge problem because the numbers are not high—of people finding a secure place to give birth. The Maternity Alliance has also pointed out that the use of the Public Order Act 1986 has, on occasions, led to pregnant women being harassed—not with fatal consequences—at a time when the last thing that they need is to be moved on, harassed and harried by police and other officials.
256
The National Council for Civil Liberties generates controversy from time to time, but generally it tries to act as a watchdog for our civil liberties, and I am sure that most reasonable hon. Members agree that it fulfils a necessary function. The NCCL has pointed out that, on occasions, the civil rights of travelling people have been breached. It has stated that there is a need for designated sites and proper stopping places. It is difficult to protect the civil rights of anybody who does not have a regular pattern of living.
The NCCL has recognised that about one third of England is, in effect, a no-go area for travelling people. That shows the reality of the choices available to them. They are not welcome in and will be moved on from as much as one third of the area of England. We need to address that serious problem. The NCCL has also published a series of proposals, not all of which either the Labour party or myself would endorse. Nevertheless, it has highlighted the fact that in this case there has been an erosion of civil liberties and that we must deal with that issue.
Several hon. Members referred to the problem of education which, for many travelling children, simply does not exist. Many of them do not have any continuity or pattern to their education because the lack of permanent sites and stopping places makes that impossible. That means that we shall have a continuing problem. The merry-go-round of official action, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West highlighted so well and 10 which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) referred, but from a different perspective, is also evident in travelling children's education. They cannot have any continuity when they are moved from pillar to post and d o not know where they will be from one month—or even one week—to the next.
Several studies have been carried out on the health of travelling children and their families. A review article in the Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners in October 1989 listed some of the health problems that general practitioners have encountered when trying to give treatment to the families of travelling people. The article refers to the hostile environment in which travelling people often live, which is often a breeding ground for disease and leads to various other problems. It also refers to their problems of access to health care because, as I said., they do not have a regular pattern of living and have no regular base. Both the length of that article and the limited time available to me prevent me from going into as much detail as I should have liked, but I repeat that we must address that real health problem.
The real problem is that this Government and, to some extent, previous Labour Governments, have failed properly to enforce the legislative powers that already exist. It is that failure that has created all the other problems. It has led to the problems of which my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington has experience and to the problems experienced in constituencies across the country where there are rival hostilities. On the one hand, there is a need to provide homes for people to live in but, on the other hand, there is the problem of the hostility of resident communities when unofficial encampments are set up and sometimes even when there are attempts to establish more permanent bases.
In the end, the responsibility falls to Government. If local authorities, whatever their political persuasion, do

257
not fulfil their obligations, central Government must make them do so. That is the thrust of the Select Committee report and the thrust that my hon. Friends and I support.
I hope that, at long last, the health, education and other problems that have been raised in the debate, including the need to find sites, are tackled effectively. If they are not, the problems, as in the past 10 years or more, will continue to grow. If that happens, it will bring no credit to the Government, to the House and to hon. Members. While I suspect that the Minister will not be able to satisfy us that all those problems will be tackled, he has a worthy task.
This has been a good debate, which has shown that the Government of the day must try to resolve the problems that exist for this minority of people. Otherwise they will be the Government of only part of the nation and will not be looking after the interests of all, including this minority.
9.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I shall do my best in the 15 minutes remaining to answer the points that have been raised. I join others in congratulating all who participated in the debate, which has been of high quality. It has fairly reflected the fact that this is the first prime time debate on gipsies for many years. It vindicates the use that has been made on this occasion of important estimates time and has shown the widespread interest in the subject by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on the clear and concise way in which he introduced the debate and presented the findings of the Select Committee. He, as a representative of Hertfordshire, knows more about the problem than many. He drew attention to some of the issues involved.
It has been obvious during the debate that it is not easy to find any consensus on the subject. If we needed reminding of that, we did not have to wait long before we heard the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) complaining that Bradford had been designated, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) complaining that Haringey had not been designated. It is against that background that I have been fortunate in receiving so much in the way of commiseration from hon. Members on both sides.
The starting point is the numbers and the progress that has been made since the passing of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. When that measure was passed, relatively few gipsies were on authorised sites. By January 1979 there were 8,358 gipsy caravans in England, of which 4,182 were on authorised sites and almost an equivalent number on unauthorised sites. In other words, only 50 per cent. by January 1979 were on authorised sites.
By January 1990—it is important when comparing figures always to choose the same month in the year because there is much variation during the course of a year—there were 11,544 gipsy caravans in England, an increase of about 3,200. The number on authorised sites had gone up from 4,182 to 7,650, an increase of about 3,500. That was a creditable improvement in performance, brought about by the way in which the Government implemented the Act. It is also significant that the number of caravans on authorised private sites has gone up significantly, from about 1,100 in 1979 to 2,471 in January this year.
258
As my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and others pointed out, the question is to what extent the number will continue to increase, for at present the number of gipsy caravans is increasing almost as fast as additional provision is being made. That is why one can get a projection that it will be many years before the problem is resolved. I take a much more pessimistic—or perhaps realistic—view. The problems will never be solved while we rely on the legislation that we have. As soon as the demand is satisfied, there will be additional demands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West drew attention to the difficulty of defining a gipsy. It is worth reminding the House that the issue was considered in another place in a court judgment in 1988. The judgment confirmed the statutory definition by concluding:
"The test of a person claiming to be a gipsy is that of a nomadic way of life rather than race or origin."
It is for the local authority to decide whether a person or group of people comes within that definition. From what one hears, there may be more scope for local authorities to question the credentials of some people who present themselves as gipsies. If that was done, we might see a slowing of the increase in the number of gipsy caravans. Clearly, it is not worth while for a council to undertake that questioning role unless it is designated. If it is designated, it can take effective action to ensure that unauthorised camping in its area is significantly reduced, if not eliminated.
We have heard that the increase in provision represents genuine progress, but of course things are not absolutely perfect. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green reminded the House of the vile way in which some so-called gipsies behave and the awful consequences for people who live in the area. At the end of a powerful speech, my hon. Friend asked what advice I could give him. My advice is to seek to persuade his council in Haringey to apply for designation. My Department has done all that it can to persuade Haringey to apply for designation.
Sir Hugh Rossi: I assure my hon. Friend that I have done everything within my power to persuade the local authority to apply for designation. It debated the matter, and on a majority vote decided not to do so.
Mr. Chope: That is disappointing news. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to pursue that. He asks the Government to force designation on Haringey, but it is clear from the debate tonight that even where an authority is designated, as Bradford city council is, the council can decide not to use its powers of designation. I fear that, if the Government legislated to satisfy my hon. Friend's request, the irresponsible Haringey council would refuse to use the powers that it had under designation.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Then it could be subject to judicial review or the old writs of certiorari or mandamus.
Mr. Chope: That is possible, but my hon. Friend is familiar with the difficulties of enforcing measures when a local authority is reluctant to fulfil its responsibilities under the law.
Mr. Madden rose—
Mr. Chope: I shall come to Bradford. When Bradford was brought into the discussion, it was the low point of the

259
debate. The hon. Member for Bradford, West said that the result of designation in Bradford was no progress. The only reason why there was no progress in Bradford was that Bradford city council, which is now, sadly, under Labour control, did not use its powers under designation. The hon. Members for Bradford, West and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) traduced the true background of designation in Bradford. None of the neighbouring authorities raised substantial objections to the proposed designation, except North Yorkshire county council.
In the Bradford decision letter, the Department formally warned adjacent authorities such as Calderdale and Kirklees that, if they did not make provision, the Secretary of State would be obliged to take action against them. The Department's regional office has followed up those warnings with meetings, as it is important that adequate provision is made in those adjoining authorities.
Bradford is designated, and it is up to Bradford to decide whether it wants to use those powers of designation. From the information that I have received, I believe that the people of Bradford would much prefer the powers to be used so that they are not subjected to so much unnecessary nuisance from gipsies.
Mr. Madden: In Bradford, there are insufficient permanent sites for travellers who have come to the city over the year and neighbouring authorities have singularly failed to make permanent site provision. Therefore, does the Minister agree that the powers of designation are absolutely worthless? To seek to implement designation is futile because all one would seek to do would be to take caravans to the border of the authority, which would then immediately return. Designation is not an adequate solution to a long-standing problem that has affected administrations of all political persuasions and, over the years, cost the ratepayers of Bradford the best part of £500,000.
Mr. Chive: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Designation and the implementation of the powers of designation are not futile. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green recognises that if Haringey had designation, problems would be rapidly resolved. The same would be true of Bradford if the Labour council had the will to do more on behalf of the local people.
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Chope: I shall not give way again. I have given way twice, and I have four minutes left in which to reply to the debate.
Important points about enforcement have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke about section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. The House will be aware that, on 26 October 1989, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary announced an evaluation of the working of section 39 of that Act, which will consider the sort of problems that my hon. Friend raised. The outcome of that review is expected at the end of the year. Certainly there seems to be a difference in the policies of police forces in different parts of the country.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) spoke about enforcement, which is a problem. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said because, many
260
years ago, I cut my teeth as a barrister largely relying on defending gipsies in Sevenoaks magistrates court. I am familiar with the number of gipsies in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Robert Carnwath, in his report on planning enforcement, considered caravans and how one can effectively issue an injunction against the unlawful occupation of land by a caravan that is being used for residential occupation. The Government believe that legislation is needed in that respect. I hope that it will be brought forward soon and will do something significant to relieve the problems to which my hon. Friends drew attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) di .d not believe that the designation powers were quick enough, cheap enough or effective enough. I believe that those powers can be used effectively, but the speed with which they are used obviously depends on the relationship that the local authority has with the local magistrates court—most local authorities do not seem to have a problem in that respect.
Obviously, costs can be incurred when cleaning up after the gipsies have left, but such cost is unavoidable so long as some gipsies behave in an anti-social manner. Designation and enforcement are more effective when more authorities are designated; that is why the Government are putting a lot of emphasis on trying to encourage more authorities to come forward with gipsy sites so that they can be designated.
This is very much a carrot-and-stick policy. The Government have tried to give local authorities the incentive to designate more sites. We have backed that up with a 100 per cent. grant and we are now considering whether to say that after a given period of time we shall no longer give any grant so that the minds of local authorities will be even more concentrated, giving them a greater incentive to seek designation for the provision of the extra gipsy sites that we need.
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on Estimates, 1990–91 (Class III, vote 3 and Class VIII, vote 4) and the remaining Estimates appointed for consideration this day.

CLASS III, VOTE 3
Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £87,366,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other service.

CLASS XVI, VOTE
Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £21,679,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on market support, grants for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood an coast protection, and certain other services.

CLASS XVI, VOTE 5
Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £194,160,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Welsh Office tourism, roads and transport and certain associated services, housing, historic buildings and ancient monuments, other environmental services (including civil defence), education, libraries and museums, health and personal social services, grants in aid, EC agency payments, other grants and certain other services, including research.

CLASS XVI, VOTE 9
Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £30,926,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on central administration.

CLASS VIII, VOTE 4
Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £30,785,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on road infrastructure required for the development of new towns, gypsy sites, smoke control, planning redevelopment and other environmental services, on other water supply, conservation and sewage services, and on town and country planning (including compensation).
MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).
Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £77,488,089,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1991 as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 242, 243, 244 and 456.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the six foregoing resolutions, the two resolutions of 14 June and the three resolutions of 2 July relating to Estimates 1990–91 (Vote on Account), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Richard Ryder and Mr. Peter Lilley.
Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending on 31 March 1991, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Business of the House Motion in the name of Sir Geoffrey Howe may be proceeded with, though opposed until the end of a period of one and a half hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Wood.]

Business of the House
10.1 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That, (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Local Government may be proceeded with, at the sitting on Wednesday 1 I th July, though opposed, until midnight; and, at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motions; and
(2) If proceedings on the above Motions have not been completed before Seven o'clock at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the said Private Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will see, the motion is divided into two parts. As I understand it, it was put down as recently as last Friday. Will you accept a manuscript amendment to the second part, the section which deals with the private business next Thursday? If that were possible, it would be for the convenience of the House. Some of us do not want the second half of the motion, but are quite happy with the first part. As this is only the third day that it has been on the Order Paper, will you accept a manuscript amendment?
Mr. Speaker: The motion was down on Friday, when it was objected to. There would have been time to table an amendment yesterday.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The motion on the Order Paper has two purposes, as the House will divine. First, it provides for the debate on the charge limitation orders to continue until midnight tomorrow and until 7 o'clock on Thursday. Secondly—the point that is objected to by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—it allows the private business on Thursday to run for a full three hours even if the preceding business prevents that private business from starting at 7 o'clock.
The timing of the local government orders was agreed through the usual channels last week. It is worth noticing that, if the motion were not approved by the House, under Standing Orders the debate on the three separate orders would continue tomorrow evening until they were disposed of, which could be as late as 2.30 am. The debate could not be continued on Thursday and it is clear that that is not what the House would wish.
Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On many occasions you have ruled that sub judice matters should not be discussed in the House. As the Bill has gone to the Lords, may I ask you to say that the sub judice rule now applies to the business before the House?
Mr. Speaker: That does not arise. The local government motions are delegated legislation and the sub judice rule does not bite on that.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The second part of the motion provides so-called injury time for private business. In allowing that, I am meeting a request from the Chairman

263
of Ways and Means. Bearing in mind that the business on Thursday—the London Underground Bill—affects the area surrounding the Palace and has been the subject of a report from the Services Committee, the Chairman considers that there is sufficient interest in that Bill to warrant giving it a full three hours' debate. That is the purpose of the second part of the motion.
I hope that the House will agree to this entirely reasonable request from the Chair and to the other agreed arrangements that I have mentioned. Any hon. Member who has concerns about the private business can raise them in the debate in the proper way.
10.6 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: The first part of the procedural motion is as we expected, and all hon. Members understand the need for it. It has been discussed in the usual way. The second part of the motion deals specifically with the way in which we deal with private Bills. It is well known that Opposition Members and some other hon. Members are not happy with the way in which private Bills are dealt with. The reasons are well rehearsed and have been debated many times, and no doubt we shall have another such debate before long, because the Government have issued a consultation document on the subject which I hope will lead to reform of the way in which we deal with private Bills.
I cannot understand—and the Leader of the House has not given us sufficient explanation—why we have to have this unusual procedural motion to deal with one private Bill which will be before the House on Thursday. Why does that Bill have to be protected, if I may put it that way? I am not discussing the Bill's merits because, as has rightly been said, they can be discussed at the appropriate time, but questions need to be raised as to why some Bills are protected by procedure and others are not. At a time when everyone recognises that we need to look at the way in which private Bills are dealt with, why is it necessary to have a rather tactless but specific procedural motion to deal with one private Bill? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, the motion was rather surprisingly brought forward on Friday but was not moved.
Mr. Cryer: The motion was not moved on Friday and came before the only yesterday. That means that a rather sudden procedure has been visited upon the House.
Mr. Grocott: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is precisely for those reasons that we are not happy with the motion. So far, the Leader of the House has not given a satisfactory explanation as to why it is necessary to bring the motion forward on this Bill.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): It was agreed through the usual channels.
Mr. Grocott: No, it was not, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. We must have a satisfactory explanation of why matters have developed in this way.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did I hear my hon. Friend aright? Did he say that there had been no agreement through the usual channels? Does he recall that, on two occasions last week, the usual channels did not operate, and as a result there was an almighty shambles and a row in the House? The new Leader of the House seems to be more concerned about getting to bed than with
264
dealing with the matters in hand. I think that this matter should go back—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) agrees—and we should have a discussion about it. We should not treat Mr. Speaker with contempt because he made it abundantly clear last week that he wanted to sit in the Chair and see the usual channels operate. I do not want to sound a s though I am protecting the Speaker—
Mr. Max Madden: My hon. Friend is doing a good job.
Mr. Skinner: I know that it sounds like that. It is high time that the usual channels got together and sorted this out. I have reason to believe that if the line goes ahead there will be a great big heap of earth stuck in the middle of Parliament square for five years—
Mr. Cryer: Seven years.
Mr. Skinner: Seven years—it is going up—any advance on seven years? The Speaker will not be able to get his car round it. The Prime Minister will be gone by then and there will be a new Prime Minister with a Daimler who will not be able to get round the heap either.
Mr. Grocott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his diplomatic intervention. He is almost part of the usual channels himself these days, and he has been helpful.
It is clear that such motions should not go down on the Order Paper in this way, without proper discussion. I am sure that, unless the Leader of the House comes forward with a far better explanation than he has done so far. many of us will be inclined to vote against the motion.
10.13 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: Many of us are concerned about the Government's use of private Bills. The London Underground Bill will provide another arm in the legislation that the Government are introducing. The House knows of the difficulties that we have had over the Bills relating to docks and the opposition that has been generated because of the Government's actions. Therefore, to use this procedure as the Leader of the House is suggesting is contrary to the will of the House.
Private business and private Bills are a matter for the House of Commons, not the Government. Irrespective of any letter from the Chairman of Ways and Means, for the Government to table a motion insisting that we have three hours of debate with no interruption makes many of us suspicious that the Government have done that in the hope that they can pass the Bill on Thursday night in one sitting. If that were to happen, it would be outrageous. This is a highly contentious Bill.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, because the Government appear to be prejudging any decision that you, Mr. Speaker, may make tomorrow night. By putting down a time limit of three hours it is obvious that they expect you to accept the closure motion on this important private Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) would agree that it is wrong for the Government to seek to restrict debate in the House on such an important matter.
Mr. Orme: I put it to the Leader of the House, because I think that he is a fair person—
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Leave it to the sagacious Members of the House. My hon. Friend knows best.
Mr. Orme: I am sorry if my hon. Friend does not agree, but I am sure that the Leader of the House is a fair person. I speak as a member of the Select Committee dealing with the Bill. We have met the Secretary of State for Transport and the chairman of London Transport, and have taken technical advice. The Committee sees the Bill as a major proposition and believes that it should be examined in detail. Many of us believe that the Bill is seen by many people as a developers' Bill that will assist the development in Canary wharf and the east end of London.
I must make it clear that, although many of us are opposed to some aspects of the Bill, we are not opposed to the Jubilee line. We are opposed to the interchange being sited in Parliament square, and we shall develop that argument more fully on Thursday. I urge the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Does the right hon. Gentleman, who is chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, understand the proposals? I shall remind him what they entail. The first point is not opposed by anyone—it has been agreed through the usual channels. It allows the debate to proceed until midnight tomorrow and until 7 o'clock on Thursday. The second point is designed to prevent the time available for debate on Thursday being curtailed by any Divisions that may take place at 7 o'clock. It is designed not to constrict, but to enlarge, the amount of time available. It will ensure that there is a full three hours for debate.
The motion has been tabled in response to a specific request from the Chairman of Ways and Means in the following terms:
"As you know, this Bill affects the area immediately surrounding the precincts of the Palace and has been the subject of a report from the Services Committee. The Chairman of Ways and Means feels that there is sufficient interest in this Bill to warrant Members being given a full three hours debating time."
I am responding to a request from the Chairman of Ways and Means to enlarge the time available to accommodate precisely the sort of points that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make. Had I not tabled the motion, the time available would be reduced by whatever time was taken by Divisions. I am responding to a specific request to meet the very points being raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that, on that basis, he will now concur with the motion.
Mr. Orme: I followed closely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. Will he give an assurance that he will not move the closure and seek to put the matter to a vote on Thursday evening?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The conduct of the proceedings on Thursday night will be under the charge of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the usual way. All that I am doing is attempting to ensure that the usual amount of time is available for that to take place.
Mr. Orme: It is that very point that makes me so suspicious. I understand the request from the Chairman of Ways and Means, but it is a Government motion. The Government are responsible for the motion and for the conduct of the business. We have a suspicion that the Government are trying to bounce the House to pass a Bill
266
on a basis that is quite unacceptable to the House. I could develop that argument, but I think that I have made my point. I urge my hon. Friends and any Conservative Members who want fair play to vote against the motion.
10.18 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: We are in an unusual and I understand, unprecedented position, because the Government's proposals to cap the poll tax in an enormous number of local authorities—which are to be debated for an extended period tomorrow and until 7 o'clock on Thursday—do not allow sufficient time for proper consideration of what is probably the most draconian imposition on local government that we have ever witnessed—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) would just listen for a moment, he would hear my argument. The proposals merit far more than a day and a half of debate—indeed, far more than an extended day and a half.
With more democratic management, there would have been far longer and there would not have been any risk that the time necessary to discuss and vote on the three orders would interfere with the time set aside under the procedures of the House for private business. The usual channels—not a mechanism which normally benefits my party or one which we endorse—regard a day and a half as sufficient. I think it is not sufficient, even if one includes the time for three votes—up to three quarters of an hour. The motion has been tabled as a result of bad management. The Government have not allowed enough time.
However, I shall vote for the business motion tonight, for the following reason. We need at least three hours for the Second Reading debate on the London Underground Bill and the Jubilee line. I agree with the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who said that we need more than three hours.
I have a particular interest in Thursday evening's debate, because the London Underground Bill greatly affects my constituents. It contains a proposal to extend the Jubilee line from Green park via Westminster, under the river to Waterloo, through the north part of Southwark, into the Isle of Dogs, on to the Greenwich peninsula and then on to Stratford.
Until this morning, there had been a general expectation that the underground would have two new stations in the borough of Southwark—in Southwark and in Bermondsey—as part of the proposals to which the Government would announce their commitment. I awoke this morning to find two reports in the national press suggesting that those stations might now not be built. I had already yesterday arranged an urgent meeting for today with the Minister for Public Transport.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but surely his argument is more relevant to the private Bill than to the business motion.
Mr. Hughes: I am seeking to keep to the subject of the business motion, and I understand the difference. The important relationship between the business motion and Thursday's debate is that that will be our only opportunity to debate what appears to be a substantial risk that a Bill

267
which originally would have produced some benefit for my constituency will not now do so. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we have an extended debate of three hours.
The conjunction of business on Thursday means a debate and vote on poll tax capping for Southwark and then a debate on the Jubilee line, which is proposed to go under Southwark, but with no commitment for extra stations for the borough.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: All for nothing.
Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Member for Workington says, the risk is that we will have four or five years of disruption for the building of an underground line under the borough with no new stations to show for it.
The reason why we need time on Thursday for the private Bill but why this is bad management of business for the poll tax debate is that there are substantial cost implications for Southwark of the London Underground Bill, which the same day will probably be capped and have its budget reduced from £241,000 to about £229,000 if the orders are passed.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Surely not? It is £235,000.
Mr. Hughes: No, £291,000 is currently the council's budget. The juxtaposition of the draconian poll tax capping of one of the poorest boroughs in Britain with a debate in which we are likely to hear that there will be no commitment to public transport benefit for the same borough is pretty rich indeed.
268
I hope that we shall have three hours for the London Underground debate on Thursday. We should also have had far longer for the poll tax debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Labour gain.
Mr. Hughes: It will not be a Labour gain. In this May's local election, Labour got 35 per cent. of the vote in Southwark and Bermondsey, and we got 55 per cent. I shall try not to be distracted again.
I am sad that the result of the procedural muddle in to which the Government have got themselves is that the important debates of tomorrow and Thursday will be curtailed; and that the House's usual procedures will now—although rightly—be disrupted by the need to protect private business.
I gather that the House is soon to decide on how to conduct private business—there have been inquiries, Committees have reported and the Government have given their responses. If we are to debate private legislation in this place, we need enough time to discuss it properly on Second Reading, and that may necessitate far more than three hours. If we are not to debate private legislation here, then major development must be decided by a proper democratic process. At the moment, all we have is a muddle, and inadequate time to discuss matters of immense local interest. We have to contort the procedures of the House to squeeze in a combination of public and private business—trying to pour a quart into a pint pot. it is a sad state of affairs, and this motion will barely rescue some time for consideration of the vital private business on Thursday.
10.26 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The first half of the motion is the more palatable. It is worth pointing out that every order should have at least one and a half hours discussion; by lumping the orders together tomorrow, the Government will allow each one much less than that.
One of the Government's problems is that they are short of time. They have already announced that the House will rise on 26 July, so by means of this motion they are pushing through legislation as rapidly as possible in the diminishing time that they have left. That is entirely typical of a Government who, for the past 10 years, have abused the democratic procedures of the House and forced through Act after Act—far more, in fact, than the House and its secretarial staff can cope with.
Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend really trying to convince me, at 10.27 pm, that the Government are in time trouble? Is he seriously telling us that, because the House is getting up at the end of July, they do not have time to deal with this matter? I read a report in the Evening Standard that the House would have risen on the 19th, but that the Government would carry on to the 26th not because they did not have time but because two more garden parties had been laid on. Three of them have been put on this time—one extra because "she" is not paying the poll tax. If that is so, we are only here to allow those garden parties to take place, so that all those Members of Parliament can go trotting down the Mall. When I bump into them at the end of St. James's park, I say, "'Eh up, Jack, where are you going?" They say, "Well, it's the wife, you know."
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would it not be more appropriate if the hon. Gentleman sought to catch the eye of the Chair to put these most interesting points to the whole House rather than to his hon. Friend?
Mr. Cryer: I am surprised by my hon. Friend's comments. What worries me, as he knows, is that the national executive committee of the Labour party has expressed some reservations about the anti-poll tax union. If Her Majesty is not paying the poll tax, as my hon. Friend suggests that she is not, that means that she will be part of the anti-poll tax union, so when we are in government our leadership may be somewhat reluctant to go and talk to her—
Mr. Speaker:Order. It is a long tradition of the House that we do not involve members of the royal family in our arguments.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for preventing me from entering that area. I must relate my remarks to the two motions. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The Government are in difficulty over timing.
Mr. Skinner: We could come back in August.
Mr. Cryer: The only way the Government have managed to get their legislation through is by one guillotine after another. Only by tabling procedural motions such as this have they been able to squeeze in the additional legislation.
Earlier this evening we discussed the problems associated with gipsies. It was one of the few occasions when we had time to debate that important subject
270
without the continuing pressure of legislation. The House does not deal effectively with delegated powers. The capping orders are affirmative orders that each deserve one and a half hours of debate. The majority of legislation affecting our citizens is not primary legislation—it is provided by means of delegated powers, such as the poll tax capping orders. Delegated legislation should be given the degree of attention that it merits—much more than one and a half hours for each order.
We are considering 20 orders which, if each were given one and a half hours, would be debated for 30 hours. That shows how the House is being robbed of time. There would be 20 Divisions, so that we could register our clear opposition to each order. Every hon. Member representing a poll tax-capped authority would be able to spell out the cuts that the Government are imposing on them. Each authority will have to make emergency plans. We ought to be able to refer to the teachers and caretakers who will have to be sacked and the services for the mentally handicapped that will have to be cut, all because of the Government.
The first part of the business motion inevitably means that those details cannot be spelt out in the time available. There is insufficient time to accommodate all 20 Members of Parliament who represent poll tax-capped authorities. All of them are represented by Labour Members, but a crop of Tories will be sent in by the Whips, who will tell them, "Don't let the Opposition take up too much time—We want you to go in and speak for Tory-controlled local authorities that are not poll tax-capped." Those Members will use up 10 minutes of our time, in which we could have referred to areas being robbed by this Tory Government. We shall be robbed by the Tory serfs—servile people who speak in the debate at the behest of the Whips and take up our time. Then the Leader of the House—Mogadon man personified—comes here to set the place on fire.
Mr. Skinner: Mogadon man has changed his name; he is now Slippery Dick.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In ordinary circumstances, if the Tories took up half of each one and a half hours, with luck we might get 45 minutes. The Leader of the House has now come to tell us that we cannot even have that. We are to be limited to less than the full 30 hours which ought to be allocated to the order.
It is true that this has been agreed by the usual channels, but the usual channels know full well that the Government would bring in their huge majority and push through a more restrictive business motion.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Hon. Members should be quite clear that the Government have fiddled the arrangements, because they have concertina-ed 20 poll tax-capping provisions into three orders, one of which deals with a single authority, another with three authorities and the other with 16 authorities. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there should be a separate debate on each of those motions. The Government have already concertina-ed those into three orders so it is a double fiddle—first, reducing it to three orders and, secondly, giving us only one debate for 20 councils' poll tax limits.
Mr. Cryer: The House will soon have to consider the delegated legislation provisions. It is quite wrong to compress orders in this way. If the orders are important,

271
they should be given the one and half hours maximum time. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) mentioned the Education (Student Loans) Order, but debate on that was curtailed. Many hon. Members wanted to participate but made short speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was unable to participate, and made a point of order in protest.
Serious and important legislation such as these poll tax capping orders, which will affect millions of people, is being rushed through the House in, at best, an hour and a half and, at worst, in a few minutes. That is a matter of considerable outrage.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend said that the timing of the debate on poll tax capping had been agreed by the usual channels. I am not quite sure what "usual channels" means, so perhaps he will explain that to me. The Leader of the House must realise that it has not been agreed by Back Benchers, and if it has not been agreed by Back Benchers, there may he problems for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Cryer: The usual channels, as my hon. Friend knows, are the Whips on both sides. My hon. Friends in the Whips Office are in some difficulty because they have to negotiate the best deal.
Mr. Skinner: 'Allo, 'allo, 'allo!
Mr. Cryer: The Government are always imposing the potential threat, "If you do not agree, we will bring the troops in and force something through which is much less acceptable." As far as I understand it, that is how the usual channels work. Not having anything to do with the Whips Office at any time, I can tell my hon. Friend that I am not aware of the intricate mechanisms.
Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend will be.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) suggests that I will be. With his new-found enthusiasm for the European Community, he is much more likely to get into the Whips Office and the establishment before me.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The abuse of orders that my hon. Friend mentioned is considerable. Last night, we had an hour and a half on the Education (Student Loans) Order, which was much more significant than the Education (Student Loans) Bill. The Bill was a general enabling measure, and the detail was contained in the order. The order was 50 per cent. longer than the legislation, which we had spent considerable time debating in the House, but we had no chance of a reasonable or proper discussion on any of the serious issues.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for those points, and my hon. Friend is right. The motion is pushing through a chunk of delegated legislation. At the end of 1989, we held the Commonwealth delegated legislation conference, which occurs every five years. Many Commonwealth countries have much more careful scrutiny of delegated powers. In Canada, New Zealand and Zimbabwe, it is recognised that delegated powers have as much impact as—and sometimes more than—primary legislation.
The equivalent of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which scrutinises delegated legislation, often has the right to prevent a debate from taking place until it
272
has reported to the legislature, which does not occur here, and it has the right to stop the legislation coming into operation until it has received all the information it has requested. If there is a suggestion that the delegated legislation being considered is ultra vires, the Committee has the right to stop the legislation coming into force until a replacement order is put into operation.
The business motion shows how inferior this House is. We not only do not have an hour and a half—itself a nominal period—but no Committee, whether the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments or any other Select Committee, has power to modify, delay, disrupt or change statutory instruments.
It has been pointed out that some of the statutory instruments mentioned in the business motion are being grouped together.
Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cryer: I will just finish this point.
The House does not have the right to amend delegated legislation, which is wrong, because many of the statutory instruments are far longer than the primary legislation which gives the Minister power. That is absurd. it is a convenience for and an abuse by the Executive to put through the House primary legislation consisting of half a dozen clauses with wide enabling powers and then to produce statutory instruments 20 or 30 pages long and containing 40 or 50 enormous schedules.
Mr. David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cryer: I will give way, but I have a list and I like to be fair, so I shall give way to hon. Members in the order in which they caught my eye.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—[ Interruption.] It is late, isn't it? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is talking about delegated and primary legislation. I hear him talk about it on many occasions. We put him in a special job. We shunted him along to be Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which includes Members of the House of Lords. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), the new Euro-fanatic, are beginning to wonder what my hon. Friend is doing in the Chair. We hear complaint after complaint. Why is my hon. Friend not delivering the goods? It is time we heard about that. Is my hon. Friend telling me that he is not smart enough to beat Mogadon man?
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I am not sure what for, but one has to be courteous on these occasions. My hon. Friend will recall that the order on student loans was withdrawn by a Minister and deferred for almost a week because the Committee had not reported. That was done on the insistence of myself, as Chairman of the Select Committee, and other hon. Members. The House insisted on having the information that we are required by Standing Order to provide.
Mr. Trimble: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's complaints about delegated legislation, which he said was sometimes almost as important as primary legislation, and about the absence of an opportunity to amend it. Does he agree that those points

273
apply with even greater force when the delegated legislation is primary legislation, as with Orders in Council for Northern Ireland? Will he support us in trying to end that iniquitous system?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has been very good up to now in relating his comments to the business motion. Perhaps he will continue to do so.
Mr. Cryer: I shall, of course, relate what I am saying to the business motion—
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the business motion, which is split into two parts. May I take it that you will be putting both parts separately?
Madam Deputy Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman knows me better than that. When the time comes, I shall put the motion as it stands.
Mr. Cryer: The scrutiny of delegated legislation is unsatisfactory. Bringing that fact to the attention of the Chamber is an important way of seeking improvements which, I judge, is part of my task as Chairman of the Committees on Statutory Instruments. Raising these points also highlights one difficulty which will be compounded if this business motion were to apply to legislation affecting Northern Ireland—that the scrutiny of Northern Ireland legislation, which is under the control of one individual, is less than satisfactory. The Committee receives certain orders governing Northern Ireland, but by no means the whole gamut. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that this matter involves a great issue which needs rectifying.
Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in my council area of Calderdale, which is covered by one of the orders. From what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said, am I right in understanding that the capping of Calderdale council will not be debated separately? This is a serious issue. Indeed, the local council issued a press release earlier tonight to the effect that £1 million will have to be cut from the education budget. As my hon. Friend knows, we are in the bottom 10 per cent. in terms of education spending. Furthermore, there is still selective education—grammar schools—in my constituency.
Is there no way in which we can have a separate debate on the capping of Calderdale council, given that it set the 47th lowest poll tax in the country and, as a result of the capping, will have the fourth lowest? No one—except the Secretary of State for the Environment, who made a political decision—can understand why on earth Calderdale council has been capped. Is there no procedural way in which we can achieve a separate debate on Calderdale council? The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) borders my local authority area. He therefore has a great interest in this matter, because constituents cross from one area to the other.
Mr. Cryer: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has raised an important point on behalf of her constituents. She is concerned about the wicked effects on her constituents of this delegated
274
legislation, which will be forced on Calderdale local authority with such vicious ruthlessness by the Government. Unfortunately, under the terms of the business motion, which relates to the motion tabled by the Secretary of State for the Environment, the order affecting Calderdale will be one of 16 to be lumped together. That means, in effect, that speeches from 16 hon. Members, one from each constituency affected—there are several representing Calderdale alone—and from 16 Tory Members will just about fill the time allowed for the debate. Yet four other orders are to be taken into account. All the orders should be dealt with separately.
We are therefore faced with an extremely unsatisfactory set of circumstances. That fact emphasises the wide powers granted to Ministers by the House under delegated legislation—but granted only because the Government have a majority. It is rare for Ministers to concede that delegated powers should come to the House. On some occasions—not in these orders—they have powers to produce statutory instruments which do not even have to come back to this place, so I suppose that it is some modest consolation that we shall have at least some debate on the important capping instruments.
I must conclude soon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—because others wish to speak, although I appreciate that there is a general clamour for me to continue. So far, I have been referring to the first half of the motion, but I must comment on the second part.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend pointed out that Calderdale was in the group of 16. That relates to the first part of the business motion. We have been trying to discover why those 16 have been presented in that fashion, why three are in another group and why one—Hillingdon—appears on its own. Can my hon. Friend explain why those areas are being taken separately in that way? Why, for example, does Doncaster appear in the group of three? Why are the 16 lumped together?
I should like to talk about Derbyshire. I want to know why, because of poll tax capping, we cannot have a nursery at the Langwith Bassett school and why other cuts have to be made. If my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and others cannot talk about such matters because the 16 are lumped together, one is bound to wonder whether preferential treatment is being given to Hillingdon.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Minister will spend perhaps an hour or more explaining those points, which will mean that we cannot have an effective debate. The Government spokesman will take a huge chunk of the time allowed under the business motion to explain the intricacies. An hour and a half should be provided for each and every order, with an explanation in each case as to why the capping is taking place in that area. We could then explain the devastation that the Government's decisions are causing to those areas, be they Labour, Tory or Liberal. That devastation is being caused by the actions of the Government, not by the actions of the local authorities.
Mr. Redmond: Is my hon. Friend aware that he is wasting his time talking to Conservatives about democracy? They are interested not in democracy but in dictatorship. If they were interested in democracy, they would not stifle discussion on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend raises an important point which reflects the fact that we cannot accept the agenda that the Government have set. We have our socialist ideals—[Interruption.] We cannot allow the Tory Government to lay down the agenda of our programme or our thoughts. That danger is ever present and we must guard against it. We must always be prepared to maintain our ideals, such as getting rid of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As my hon. Friend rightly points out, had we been allowed a debate lasting an hour and a half on each area, we could have debated the Derbyshire situation for that length of time. It could have been a fruitful debate because the nine Derbyshire Members could have divided the 90 minutes equally, taking 10 minutes each. We could all, including the five Conversative Derbyshire Members, have had a say. The Conservative Members could have explained, for instance, whether their views coincided with those of the Conservatives on the county council who do not agree with the Government's proposals for Derbyshire, and my hon. Friends and I would then have had time to explain what is wrong with the poll tax-capping arrangements.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right, but unfortunately that is not possible under the business motion. Even if we adopted the system of an hour and a half for each affirmative order, which is less than adequate, the nine 10-minute slots that my hon. Friend proposes would not be adequate, as that would not leave Front Bench Members on either side any time to speak, and Ministers tend to take a long time because they have some difficult explanations to give.
We all know that the Government's political prejudices have led them to pick out 20 Labour-controlled local authorities for deliberate vindictive action. It is difficult to shield that prejudice with talk of being reasonable and fair and adopting objective criteria, when we all know that the criteria are entirely subjective.
Mr. James Lamond: I have listened to my hon. Friend's closely argued points. I noticed that he emphasised the need for hon. Members from areas which have been charge-capped to be heard. He presents a modest case. Hon. Members from areas which have not been capped also have something to say, because the implication for councils such as Oldham borough council is that they will be inhibited in their spending. They will always be looking over their shoulder at councils which have been charge-capped. They are anxious not to be charged-capped. I should like some time in the debate on one of the orders to put that point. Other hon. Members from areas which have not been charge-capped will want to speak about the implications for their councils.
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I wish to raise a matter with the Chair because the Chair's ruling on it may affect the rest of my hon. Friend's speech.
I refer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the last sentence of paragraph 1 of the motion. I wish to relate it to paragraph 2. I raise the matter as an hon. Member whose council has been charge-capped and who wishes to speak in a debate on either Wednesday or Thursday. I wish to speak on the order on the three councils.
276
The motion says:
"Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motions".
That is simple enough as far as it goes, but paragraph 2 says:
"If proceedings on the above Motions have not been completed before Seven o'clock at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, the Private Business"
will continue thereafter. That suggests that the second part of the motion gives the Chair discretion to allow the debate to continue after 7 o'clock if some hon. Members have not been called.
That is vitally important. I understand that the Prime Minister is to make a statement to the House on Thursday about her visit to the United States. That will take up at least an hour of the time allocated to discussing the orders. If one also takes away the time that will be taken by the Front Bench Members, there will be a maximum of just one hour and 10 minutes for hon. Members to speak in the debate. I should like a ruling from the Chair. If that is the position on 12 July, will the Chair allow the debate to continue after 7 o'clock to allow hon. Members to speak if the debate about their councils has not been reached?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That was a long point of order. The hon. Gentleman has misread the motion. The Chair will have no such discretion.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) is right. As the Leader of the House knows, the business motion will tend to exclude hon. Members who want to comment on the consequential effects of the orders on their constituencies and the people whom they represent. The Leader of the House does not want to encourage or sustain debate, but to rubber stamp the business that the Government want to push through. The Government are exploiting their strength in the House by crushing yet another vestige of local democracy and autonomy.
I do not believe that it would be unreasonable for Mr. Speaker to give preference to those hon. Members whose areas are rate-capped, but my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton is right that other hon. Members should be able to express a general view about the consequences of such capping.
Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend mentioned the motion relating to Calderdale. He was mistaken about the number of hon. Members who represent the area—there are only two, myself and the hon. Member for Calder Valley (M r. Thompson). It is important that the views of that hon. Member are heard in a separate debate, as, until recently, he and the Conservative party of Calderdale applauded rate capping. Before the elections in May, they issued a leaflet to say that £50 would be knocked off the bill if people voted Tory. The council was then hung, but the electorate did not vote Tory, and Labour now has control with four seats. It would have been interesting to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say for himself.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will return to the business motion.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is concerned that the business motion will preclude contributions from those on the periphery of the

277
Calder valley because of the time limitations imposed by it. My hon. Friend is right that hon. Members sometimes say things in their constituencies which are not always made clear in the House, and vice versa. The debate between the two Members representing the Calder valley would have been extremely interesting and illuminating. It would have enabled local people to make a much better judgment as to who represents their interests. Every cent of my money would be on my hon. Friend.
I shall conclude—
Mr. Orme: Other people want to speak.
Mr. Cryer: My right hon. Friend is right, but he will know that I have had to give way to pressing interventions several times. My speech has lasted only five minutes, but I shall conclude shortly as my right hon. Friend's brow is furrowed and he likes to have a happier demeanour.
The arrangements on the London Underground Bill relating to the Jubilee line have been designed to enable it to speed its way through the House without the usual opportunities for extended debate. The statement by the Prime Minister, business questions and a possible vote on something will not be allowed to take time out of Thursday night. The three hours provided by the business motion will prevent a closure being obtained that night. That closure would mean that the Government would have to bring the Bill back—it is their Bill, after all—on another evening but they are running out of time. That is what this is all about.
The Leader of the House is sitting here complacently as he always does. The Bill will mean that Parliament square is wrecked for upwards of seven years.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Rubbish.
Mr. Cryer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: What does the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) know about London?
Mr. Cryer: I live here five days a week, I have travelled down here each week for 13 years, and my guess is that the vast majority of Londoners do not want Parliament square turned into a building site for seven years. There are other suitable sites for an interchange, but London Transport does not want them because its own premises are adjacent to them. That is what this is about—and that is why we shall vote against the motion, which is an abuse of the procedures of the House.
11.4 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I am rather surprised to be debating the motion, especially since two major issues are involved—rate capping and the Jubilee line. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) referred to the time that the New Building Sub-Committee spent debating the Jubilee line since hearing that the matter would be dealt with in a private Bill. Because of the importance of the Bill and because 650 elected Members of Parliament would be affected by the proposals, we decided to meet weekly, not for half an hour or for the usual nod as happens on statutory instruments, but for two and half to three hours on a Tuesday night.
278
On 15 May 1990 we presented a 99-page report to the House. The Leader of the House received that report as the Chairman of the Services Committee, and expressed its thanks for the amount of work that had gone into preparing it. Having prepared it, we expected at least a day to debate it. We were not representing one side of the House; we were representing all Members of Parliament, yet the Government, backed by the Leader of the House, intend to curtail the debate on Thursday night after 7 o'clock. I am rather surprised to find that the Chairman of Ways and Means has been prayed in aid as having pressed the Government to agree to a three-hour debate. How ridiculous that we should come here tonight and discover that we shall be limited to fewer then three hours to debate the Jubilee line and the far-reaching issues that that involves.
The New Building Sub-Committee was faced with the difficulty of deciding how we, as Members of the House, could be responsible for setting up a Committee of hon. Members to deal with issues that directly affect hon. Members. The report says:
"Since the House is unable to petition itself in respect of a Private Bill, the Committee have sought to examine those parts of the London Underground Bill where the interests of the House may be 'directly or specially affected', in the expectation that our findings will be taken into account both during the second reading debate and, if that stage is passed, by the Opposed Bill Committee to which the Bill will be referred."
This is a unique Bill in so far as we as Members of the House and the Committee of Selection will be selecting Members to deal with a private Bill in which we have a direct interest as it affects us in Parliament. We should be allowed more than three hours for the debate on this important line. I am amazed that the Leader of the House should limit the debate to three hours.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend is right to complain about the restriction of debate on this important Bill. It is said that the work will take seven or eight years. My hon. Friend has had experience of the construction of the building across the road and knows about slippage. Will he confirm that the job is expected to take seven years and that with slippage it could take longer?
Mr. Powell: Specialists employed by the House reported on how long the job would take if we accepted the Jubilee line proposals. The Bill is to be debated on Thursday and will then go to a Committee, which will report to the House. If all the proposals in the plan are accepted by the Committee, the job will take four to five years to complete after the Bill has passed through all its stages. That is the view of the experts. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asked about phase 1 of the new building across the road. That has already been delayed 12 months. Phase 2 involves the development of a new station at Westminster, with a raft and offices above it. As the report and the experts suggest, that could well take four or five years.
The Leader of the House said that the motion was moved on Friday. I understand from the Opposition deputy Chief Whip who was in charge of us on Friday, that that was not the case. We were told that agreement had been reached through the usual channels. I have made inquiries and found that there was no such agreement. Why do the Government want to push such an important Bill through the House in three hours?

279
It would be in the interests of the House to have a long debate on the issues and complications relating to the Jubilee line, because the line will affect the Palace of Westminster and its precincts. It will affect our access to the House, because the proposals for the line include a raft over the roadway around Parliament square, which would raise the road by about 3 ft. The Serjeant at Arms would be charged with making sure that hon. Members had access to the Palace, and he would find it difficult to carry out that task. The matter should be dealt with in great detail, and it cannot be done in three hours.
Mr. James Lamond: In an intervention, the Leader of the House claimed that he is not trying to restrict the debate to three hours, but is acceding to a request in a letter sent to him by the Chairman of Ways and Means asking that at least three hours should be devoted to the debate. In other words, the debate is likely to go on much longer.
When we debated, in the distant past, the construction of the underground car park here, that highly respected and long-serving former Member, Mr. Arthur Lewis, continually said that Big Ben was in danger of collapsing into the hole that was being dug. Thankfully, that did not happen, but I have no doubt that many Members will raise such points, which most of us have not even thought of, but which will have to be carefully examined. What if Mr. Arthur Lewis had been correct? How would we have looked if we had had a guillotined debate and refused to listen to his point about Big Ben and one day it had collapsed? We should have looked foolish if we had forced such a Bill through the House.
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is perfectly right to raise that point. The matter was discussed in Committee at some length. We envisaged a big screw coming up in Parliament square, spewing out all the earth from the Jubilee line. That will happen, the site will be barricaded, and tunnels will come in and out to ensure that there is a new station at Westminster. In all probability, the ex-Member to whom he referred, Mr. Lewis, was right when he talked about the underground car park being dug. The foundations of the very building that we are in now, could well have been affected.
Mr. Redmond: Did the Committee discuss whether the water table beneath the Palace of Westminster, from which we get water for use within the building, would be contaminated?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting detailed questions to his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that do not relate to the business of the House motion, so I shall save the hon. Member for Ogmore from responding to them, because I know that he will want to deal with the business of the House motion.
Mr. Powell: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are right. But this is a relevant point—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not at all relevant, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr. Powell: Paragraphs 16 to 27 of the Committee's report mention the "considerable dismay" with which it first heard about the Jubilee line proposal. Its members regretted that neither they nor the authorities of the House were consulted earlier. I cannot understand why there is such a rush now. Why were not hon. Members, officials of
280
the House and the New Building Sub-Committee consulted, because the effects of the development of phase 2—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: London needs railways more than we need offices.
Mr. Powell: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has a good office, but some Members are desperately in need of office accommodation, which is what the New Building Sub-Committee has been trying to develop. However, the Government are more concerned about getting the London Underground Bill on the statute book, come hell or high water, and are not particularly concerned about the interests of Members and the New Building Sub-Committee that we are trying to establish to ensure that hon. Members have accommodation.
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would know more than anyone else that hon. Members are stuck in the cloisters working in office accommodation that would not be tolerated anywhere outside this building. Instead of having the Government's co-operation to establish a building to accommodate Members, we are highballed by London Underground. It is important that we have far more than a three-hour debate on Thursday—which is all that is promised—to deal with such an important and emotive issue.
We have discussed two motions tonight and it is now 11.19 pm. I should have wished to continue for another hour at least. Some hon. Members do not have the time to sit down, read and digest all the lengthy reports published by the different Committees. The report that we are discussing has 99 pages dealing with accommodation and premises for the House of Commons. It also deals with the Jubilee line proposals that will make Parliament square a building site for at least five years. We must think about all the visitors to London. It will not be a temporary building site for 12 months or less; it will be with us for at least four or five years, and the whole site will be boarded up. We are not being given the time for debate that the proposals deserve.
Tonight we are debating only the Government's motions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall our discussions and the report of Services Committee about the delay in phase 1 of the new parliamentary building. Surely we do not want delays in the building of phase 2. He would have had the full co-operation of the New Building Sub-Committee and of Opposition Members if he had introduced the proposals properly and allocated time for them to be discussed in detail.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not think that he can force through such issues because the Government have a 100-plus majority. I remind him that the Bill first has to go through the private Bill Committee. Unless the proposals of the New Building Sub-Committee, which were presented to the House and to London Transport, are accepted, I doubt whether hon. Members, when they read the report and understand the devastation that will be caused in the area surrounding Parliament, will be eager to pass the Bill without reservation. Indeed, I even doubt whether Conservative Members will give the Bill their blessing.
I hope to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, on Thursday evening.
11.23 pm
Sir Geoffrey Howe: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to respond to the serious points raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I hope that, within the bounds of order, I can acknowledge the debt that the House owes to him and his colleagues on the New Building Sub-Committee for their work on that great project. I share his dismay at the pace at which phase 1 of the new building has gone ahead. I understand the sense of unease, to put it mildly, that he and his colleagues felt about the way in which London Transport originally presented the proposals to the Sub-Committee. All those points were fair.
I hope that I shall not be regarded as offensive if I say that my recollection of the purpose of the Labour party that was born in Ogmore, in Aberavon, in my south Wales and in the remainder of the country, was to build the new Jerusalem. I am slightly dismayed by the tone of some Opposition Members, suggesting that they are more concerned about viewing Parliament square and these buildings as though they were museum curators. We have an enormous task and challenge ahead of us. We must shape the modern buildings that can be put on that side of Parliament street in a fashion appropriate to Parliament in the next millenium.
Of course, the conditions spelt out by the New Building Sub-Committee need to be considered with care, but we have an opportunity that we should reach out for, if we possibly can, and it is in that sense that I have responded to the requests made by the Chairman of Ways and Means in relation to this debate.
I was fascinated, as always, by the observations of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) when he intervened at an early stage in the debate to say that he entirely endorsed the first part of my motion and was not seeking to oppose it, which was quite understandable, as it was agreed through the usual channels. I announced the business for tomorrow and Thursday to the House last Thursday. There was ample opportunity to query it, but it has not been taken up. I was fascinated by the skill with which he was able to develop his non-opposition to that benign part of the motion for a minute or two, in the course of his brief observations.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his agreement to support the motion. I understand his anxiety about the reported uncertainty surrounding the two stations south of the river. A number of hon. Members will want to hear more about that matter, but I am glad that he agrees that three hours are necessary for the debate.
I cannot do more than ensure that the three hours which would normally be allotted tomorrow are not curtailed by voting for a shorter time. I tabled the second half of this motion in response to the Chairman of Ways and Means. He said that he felt
"there is sufficient interest in this Bill to warrant Members being given a full three hours debating time."
That is what we are seeking to provide by the second part of the motion.
The Government are acting to protect the time that will be available for private business in this way. We would not want to curtail that, even if it were in our power to do so. We support the concept of a three-hour debate in respect of that. On that basis, I hope that the House will regard the
282
second part of the motion with as much enthusiasm as it apparently regards the first part. I commend it to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 50.

Division No. 289]

[11.27 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Amess, David

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Amos, Alan

Hunter, Andrew

Arbuthnot, James

Irvine, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Jack, Michael

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Janman, Tim

Ashby, David

Jessel, Toby

Atkins, Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Atkinson, David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Baldry, Tony

Kirkhope, Timothy

Batiste, Spencer

Knapman, Roger

Bellingham, Henry

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Benyon, W.

Knowles, Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Knox, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Lang, Ian

Boswell, Tim

Lawrence, Ivan

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Lee, John (Pendle)

Bowis, John

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Brazier, Julian

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Bright, Graham

Lightbown, David

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

Livsey, Richard

Browne, John (Winchester)

Lord, Michael

Burns, Simon

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Butler, Chris

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Butterfill, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Maclean, David

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Mans, Keith

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Carrington, Matthew

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Carttiss, Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Cash, William

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Chapman, Sydney

Miller, Sir Hal

Chope, Christopher

Mills, Iain

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Monro, Sir Hector

Colvin, Michael

Morrison, Sir Charles

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Moss, Malcolm

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Cran, James

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Norris, Steve

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

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Day, Stephen

Paice, James

Devlin, Tim

Pawsey, James

Dorrell, Stephen

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Porter, David (Waveney)

Dover, Den

Raffan, Keith

Dunn, Bob

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Durant, Tony

Rathbone, Tim

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Fallon, Michael

Rhodes James, Robert

Favell, Tony

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Roe, Mrs Marion

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Ryder, Richard

Goodlad, Alastair

Sackville, Hon Tom

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shaw, David (Dover)

Grist, Ian

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hague, William

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Harris, David

Speller, Tony

Hayward, Robert

Stanbrook, Ivor

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Stern, Michael

Hind, Kenneth

Stevens, Lewis

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Summerson, Hugo

283

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wheeler, Sir John

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Widdecombe, Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wilshire, David

Thurnham, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tredinnick, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Trippier, David

Wolfson, Mark

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wood, Timothy

Walden, George

Yeo, Tim

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wallace, James

Waller, Gary

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Watts, John

Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Wells, Bowen

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Beggs, Roy

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Carr, Michael

Maxton, John

Clelland, David

Meale, Alan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Michael, Alun

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Nellist, Dave

Dewar, Donald

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Dixon, Don

Pike, Peter L.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Eastham, Ken

Primarolo, Dawn

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Redmond, Martin

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Fyfe, Maria

Salmond, Alex

Graham, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

Grocott, Bruce

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Home Robertson, John

Trimble, David

Hood, Jimmy

Turner, Dennis

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Vaz, Keith

Lamond, James

Wareing, Robert N.

Leadbitter, Ted

Wilson, Brian

Litherland, Robert

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McCartney, Ian

Wray, Jimmy

McFall, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Tellers for the Noes:

McWilliam, John

Mr. Terry Lewis and

Madden, Max

Mr. Bob Cryer.

Resolved,
That—
(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Patten relating to Local Government may be proceeded with, at the sitting on Wednesday 11 th July, though opposed, until midnight; and, at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question already proposed from the Chair and shall then put forthwith successively the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motions; and
(2)If proceedings on the above Motions have not been completed before seven o'clock at the sitting on Thursday 12th July, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour shall stand over until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the said Private Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.

PETITIONS

  Schools (Leicestershire)
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I have three petitions to present. The first is signed by 100 Leicester residents concerning the current levels of experience of members of the teaching profession in Leicestershire and the lack of teachers in local primary and secondary schools. They are concerned that there are so many vacancies in the county and they would like Government expenditure on education to be increased in order to provide additional teachers.
  "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons calls upon the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that the education of future generations is not jeopardised by this lack of funding and further calls upon him to increase the funding available for education and to secure the best teaching staff available for our children."
  The second petition is signed by 246 residents of Humberstone, Thurncourt, Coleman and Evington and concerns the A46-A47 link road, which will go through the eastern part of my constituency. The petitioners are concerned that the local authority and others are not sufficiently taking into account the safety standards of the proposed road. They are concerned, because many schools are near the route, about the possibility of injury to children. It says:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider the views of the residents of Humberstone, Thurncourt, Coleman and Evington during his considerations of the Appeals against compulsory purchase orders, and other objections related to the two routes planned by Leicestershire County Council. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  The last petition concerns the lack of lollipop ladies outside schools in Leicestershire. Local residents, in particular the parents of young children, are concerned that there are few lollipop patrols. They believe, and I support their belief, that that is because of the appalling wages paid to lollipop ladies. We face the prospect of children having to stay in school for longer hours because there are no lollipop ladies or gentlemen available.
  The petition has been signed by 339 residents, who say :
  Wherefore your Peititioners pray that your honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to provide more central funding for provision of this vital service to protect our children, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the table.

Hepatitis B Vaccine
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
11.41 pm
Mr. Robert Litherland:I welcome the opportunity to raise in this Adjournment debate an extremely serious subject relating to the hepatitis virus. My purpose is to attempt to exercise the minds of Ministers and, hopefully, to draw public attention to the need for vaccination for high-risk groups who come into contact with hepatitis carriers in their normal work.
The word "hepatitis" is well known, but we usually relate it to yellow jaundice and assume that it is the fancy medical term for that condition. Hepatitis is often a short illness leading to jaundice, and most patients recover within a few weeks or months. That hepatitis virus comes under category A. Regrettably, there is more than one type of the virus. Hepatitis A never produces permanent disease, but hepatitis B and C do, and they do not respond to antibiotics. Like hepatitis B, the C virus is transmitted through contact with infected blood and body fluids. Little is known of the C virus, there is no vaccination to protect against it and no established cure.
However, the hepatitis B virus, with which I am concerned in this short debate, can be prevented if resources, education and intention by the Government are brought into operation. My concern about the seriousness of hepatitis B was stimulated by a pamphlet produced by the Russell Harty hepatitis and liver research fund. Normally, we pay scant attention to the volumes of circulars that come in our mail, and this pamphlet was almost doomed for the waste-paper bin burial ground, but on the front was a challenge—"Dare you read on?" I took the challenge and read on.
The pamphlet outlined how the fund began, its aims and the startling information which made me sit up and think. Two hundred and eighty-five million people are carriers of this virus. Hepatitis B can live outside the body of the carrier, which makes it easier to catch than the virus that causes AIDS. It can be caught simply by coming into close contact with a carrier and unknowingly absorbing the virus from contaminated blood, from saliva, from tears, from semen, from vaginal secretions and even from perspiration through small cracks in the skin. It can be caught by kissing an infected person or by sharing a toothbrush, a razor blade or needles. The most chilling fact was that hepatitis B kills more people worldwide in one day than AIDS does in a whole year. Who can catch the virus? The answer is, every one of us.
Hepatitis B can be prevented by vaccination, and that is why I want to raise the problem of the low take-up of the hepatitis B vaccine among high-risk groups, which demonstrates a miserable lack of action by the Government. Despite Government advice that members of high-risk groups should be vaccinated, we have no Department of Health figures or studies on the current level of vaccine take-up. I call on the Government radically to increase their responsibilities in this area.
Hepatitis B is a potentially fatal viral condition which affects the liver. The virus is more than 100 times more infectious than HIV. About 2 million people worldwide die each year of hepatitis B infection. In the United Kingdom, the annual reported incidence of acute hepatitis B has been about 1,000. The exact number of carriers is not known,
286
but it is estimated to be more than 50,000. There is no effective treatment for hepatitis B, and the best prevention of infection is vaccination.
The hepatitis B vaccine is available on national health service prescription to all high-risk groups, although many general practitioners appear still to be confused about who is entitled to receive it. In line with the World Health Organisation, the British Medical Association recommends that active immunisation is provided for health care staff in frequent contact with blood, needles or other sharp instruments in the community, in hospital or in dental departments. The Royal College of Nursing also supports the recommendations of the World Health Organisation and stresses that all nurses, including junior nurses, should be vaccinated. The RCN also recognises that there is a special risk to student nurses who regularly change their area of specialty and whose lack of experience makes them especially vulnerable to needlestick injuries.
The British Dental Association also supports the WHO guidelines and has issued a set of guidelines of its own on the prevention of infection and cross-infection for all dental health workers. The guidelines call for all clinical dental professionals to be immunised against the virus as soon as possible. Many other organisations and trade unions follow and recommend the WHO guidelines.
The incidence of hepatitis B in institutions, especially those for the mentally ill, has been significantly higher than in the general population. One recent survey found evidence of past infection in almost half the patients in a large mental hospital. Nursing and administrative staff who come into contact with highly unpredictable patients are inevitably at risk of infection. One tragic example is that of a psychiatric nurse, Thomas Rowe, who died from hepatitis B after being bitten by a patient at the Turner Village hospital in Colchester.
Accidental needlestick injuries from syringes infected with hepatitis B or HIV have become increasingly common. A number of cases have occurred among staff working in needle and syringe exchange schemes. The growing number of arbitrary cases is especially worrying, ranging from the reported cases of refuse collectors and road sweepers receiving pricks from discarded needles, to a young girl in Rhos-on-Sea receiving a needlestick injury after pricking her finger on a discarded syringe in a pub beer garden. I have also received many complaints from parents and grandparents about syringes and needles being found in school playgrounds. Vaccination to cover all such eventualities would be a massive operation, but high-risk groups at least should have the opportunity of vaccination.
Vaccination is usually given in three separate doses—an initial vaccination, followed by further doses one and six months later. A booster vaccination is recommended every three years. A course of treatment costs £30—not a great deal of money when compared with the cost of treatment once the virus is contracted and with the pain and misery suffered by the patient.
Sadly, because the hepatitis B virus is not new and has not captured public concern in the way that the AIDS virus has, it lacks a comparably high profile, and its virulence and potential danger are generally unknown among the public at large. Although incidence of acute hepatitis B is falling, due to more effective measures of protection, the absence of any official statistics and a

287
general apathy towards monitoring vaccination of staff and reporting incidents within health authorities have resulted in a confused and ill-informed picture.
To illustrate this point, I would point out that a young nurse recently contracted hepatitis B at Stoke Mandeville hospital after she was exposed to a contagious patient. During prosecution of Aylesbury Vale health authority, it transpired that a policy change in vaccinating staff had resulted in nurses having to wait six months before receiving vaccination. There are all too many cases of nurses and other health care workers contracting the virus through inefficient hospital management.
Particularly worrying in the United Kingdom is the significant number of people who get hepatitis B because of the kind of work they do. Hepatitis B has long been identified as an occupational risk to those whose work brings them into contact with blood and body fluids—such as doctors, nurses, dentists, laboratory workers, the emergency services, prison staff, and those who work with the mentally handicapped. Intravenous drug abusers and practising homosexuals are also vulnerable. There is therefore a real risk of infection for those whose work or life style brings them into contact with blood and other body fluids and who have not yet received vaccination.
Last year, the Russell Harty hepatitis and liver research fund was set up to promote awareness of the risks of hepatitis B, following the death of Russell Harty from the virus. The chairman of the fund, Alan Tomlinson, lost his nine-year-old son in 1982 as a result of his contracting hepatitis B. Both were treated at the liver disease unit of the St. James's hospital, Leeds, which is providing a focal point for the fund's activities.
In 1988, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended that named high-risk groups and their families should be vaccinated against hepatitis B. However, no new money was provided, no programme of vaccinations was set up and no follow-up monitoring was established.
From independent research undertaken in the last year, the fund believes that there is widespread ignorance among at-risk groups about the dangers of contracting the virus. It also believes that many GPs lack adequate information about the at-risk groups and that health authorities are treating the management and monitoring of vaccination programmes for own staff as a low priority. As a result of that inefficient state of affairs, people are dying needlessly.
The critical need for better management and application of the JCVI recommendations is clear and has been ignored by the Government. The inadequate provision of educational information about the dangers of hepatitis B to high-risk groups is a scandal.
Because of the lack of awareness and widespread ignorance of the dangers of hepatitis B, plus the inadequate funding of the health service, the regional health authority gives no lead and has a blinkered approach to this serious subject. The cost of immunising health service personnel and other high risk groups must be weighed against the financial demands for routine health care; so I urge the Minister to commit himself to a number of actions to redress the appalling threat to human suffering.
The Government should give an assurance that no member of a high-risk group will be denied vaccination against hepatitis B. The Government should institute their own monitoring programme to ensure comprehensive vaccination uptake according to JCVI guidelines. They
288
should add hepatitis B to the screen study that is currently in progress on the incidence of AIDS and HIV. The Health Education Authority should conduct an education campaign targeted at identified high-risk groups, their families and prescribing physicians. Hepatitis B is no respecter of persons. That is why I ask the Government to act now and save lives.
11.57 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) will not take it amiss if I express regret at the outset that he alleged that there was a division between the action that he wants taken and the stance that the Government have adopted. There is no substantial difference, and any attempt to establish a difference between his position and ours is, as I shall argue, not soundly based.
The hon. Gentleman began by emphasising the terrible nature of hepatitis B as a disease, and there is no dispute about that. It can often be fatal. Whenever the opportunity exists to prevent or impede the spread of a potentially fatal disease, we shall take what action we can to achieve that result.
The hon. Gentleman stressed that the disease was widespread elsewhere in the world. That threat we must recognise and take seriously, although we are entitled to look at the scale of the threat that the disease represents in this country, because it is to this country's resident population that our principal effort in terms of prevention must be directed.
The welcome news in the context of hepatitis B is the fact, as the hon. Gentleman emphasised, that a vaccination has been available for some years which immunises the vaccinated individual against contracting the disease. The cornerstone of his case, and the cornerstone of the Government's position, is that that vaccination should be available to anyone who is at any serious, identifiable risk of contracting hepatitis B.
That is why, to take up the first of the three objectives that the hon. Gentleman set in his concluding remarks, the Government have no difficulty in giving the assurance that no member of a high-risk group should be denied vaccination against hepatitis B. Indeed, that is our policy. We are entitled to say that that policy has been carried through in the past few years with a degree of success.
The figures on the development of the disease in Britain in the past five years are startling. The number of individuals who have been vaccinated—both the hon. Gentleman and the Government want the vaccine to be made available to high-risk people—has increased from under 19,000 in 1985 to an average of more than 300,000 in 1988 and 1989. The figure for 1988 was 325,000 and the figure for 1989 was 294,000. The vaccination programme has run at a rate of 300,000 individuals per year. We do not yet know the full life of the protection provided by the vaccine, but we are advised that we can expect that vaccination will be effective for a minimum of five years. If one adds up the figures in the past five years, roughly 850,000 individuals have received protection as a result of the vaccination programme that the Government set in place.
The effect of the vaccination programme on the development of the disease is remarkable. In 1985, a total of 1,785 cases of hepatitis B were reported. By last year, on

289
the provisional figures available to us, the incidence had fallen to 560 cases. We have cut the incidence of the disease by more than two thirds in five years by adopting precisely the commitment to vaccination that the hon. Gentleman espoused. That is not a sound foundation for the party political attack that the hon. Gentleman directed at the Government.
Other figures on the development of the disease show that in 1985 545 cases of hepatitis B were directly attributable to drug abuse. By 1988, that figure had dropped to 108 cases—a fall of almost 80 per cent. The incidence of hepatitis B among homosexual men had fallen from 128 reported cases in 1985 to 52 in 1988. The incidence among health service staff fell from 47 cases in 1985 to 24 in 1988.
The end result of the vaccination programme is to reduce the number of deaths caused by hepatitis B. I can report to the House that the number of deaths attributable to hepatitis B has been effectively stable throughout the whole period from 1985 to 1989. The highest number of deaths was in 1987, when the total was 69. The total reported in 1989 was 58.
I simply do not accept that it is a fair representation of the record of the past few years to say that vaccination has not been available to those who need it. On the contrary, the evidence is that the vaccination programme has grown considerably. The effect of the programme is there for all to see in the number of reported cases of development of the disease.
We have stressed, as the hon. Gentleman stressed, that vaccination must be available to high-risk groups. There is no constituency for the argument that immunisation should be available to all adults. The vast majority of adults are not at any appreciable risk of contracting the disease. The Government therefore accept the proposition that the vaccination should be available to high-risk groups. The broad categories that the hon. Gentleman described are not a cause for contention between us.
We do not accept, however, that every policeman should be vaccinated against hepatitis B. There are some individuals within the police force who should be vaccinated because they are at risk, but a policeman on duty in the House does not face an appreciable risk of contracting hepatitis B. Resources will always be scarce and I do not think that it would be sensible to spend more than £30 vaccinating a policeman in the House against hepatitis B when he cannot by any stretch of imagination be judged to be in a high-risk group.
The hon. Gentleman repeated several times that high-risk groups should have access to the vaccination. That is not disputed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman also argued that the Government should provide better information on the rate of take-up of the vaccine. I have given the figures relating to the number of vaccinations against the disease and the number of reported cases. Information is not in short supply, as hepatitis B is a notifiable disease and proper laboratory tests are carried out, when appropriate, as a result of that notification process. In that respect, the disease is unlike AIDS, where the same disciplines do not apply, for reasons familar to the House.
290
The Government have access to information as to the spread of the disease and the rate of vaccination against that spread. If the hon. Gentleman wishes us to publish the take-up as a percentage of the target group, there is a difficulty. As the policy is to ensure that vaccination is available to high-risk groups, it is difficult to produce an accepted denominator to work out the percentage represented by the number of vaccinations given, because we cannot accurately identify every person in the community who is a member of a high-risk group. We have sought to ensure that every individual who is in such a group is made aware of that risk and of the fact that vaccination is available to prevent the spread of the disease. I do not accept the argument that there is a shortage of information about the spread of the disease. I accept that we have been unable to produce a percentage breakdown of target group, but I do not believe that that is achievable in practice.
Bearing in mind the fact that the disease is a notifiable one and that a reporting regime is available through the public health laboratory service and that information is available to general practitioners through any number of channels, I do not accept that there is a paucity of information about the dangers of the spread of the disease among the high-risk groups or about the availability of vaccination to prevent that spread.
The hon. Gentleman also alleged that no funding was available for vaccination, but I suppose that that is ritual comment on any subject to do with the national health service. It is true that there is not special central funding, and nor should there be. We are talking about relatively small sums of money in the £29 billion budget of the Department of Health. It is an entirely proper obligation for health authorities, on behalf of their populations, to make such protection available to high-risk groups, and there is no serious evidence to support the view that vaccination has not been available to any high-risk individual on the grounds of a local lack of funding.
In conclusion, I return to the factual background to the successful control of this terrible disease in Britain. I do not dispute for one moment that it is a substantial killer elsewhere in the world and that it is far from being under control on the earth's surface, but we in Britain can claim that we have successfully made information available so that those who are at risk of contracting it have that fact drawn to their attention, and that effective arrangements have been made to ensure that those who are at risk, and to whom the education programme that the hon. Gentleman espoused and which we have sought to put in place is directed, understand that vaccination is available. The effectiveness of that policy is shown by the fact that, in five years, we have reduced the number of reported cases of the disease by two thirds.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the serious problem of the control of the spread of a terrible disease. We want to continue to do better, so that its further spread is inhibited altogether, but cutting the incidence of the diseases by two thirds in the past five years cannot be said to be anything other than one of the successes of the NHS.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is empowered to slaughter mink and foxes on fur farms.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no restrictions on who may slaughter fur-bearing animals on farms. The operation must, however, be done with due care and humanity as required by the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and without unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress as required by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to ensure that animal feed materials are not contaminated with agents harmful to humans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The safety standards of animal feed materials are laid down by EC legislation and enacted within the United Kingdom by the Agriculture Act 1970 and Feeding Stuff Regulations 1988, as amended. It is an offence for a manufacturer to sell an animal feed which is unsafe for the animal or final consumer.

  Cattle (Antibiotics)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to authorise the use of the antibiotics Avoparcin and Virginiamycin in cattle in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Both antibiotics are authorised for use in cattle by EC Directive 70/524 concerning additives in feedingstuffs. Avoparcin is already licensed for this use in the United Kingdom, but, as yet, I have received no application in respect of virginiamycin for use in cattle.

  Egg Producers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to provide to those local authorities who request them his list of egg producers and his list of egg producers who have registered with him since 2 April.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is provided to local authorities on producers who register with the Department under the Poultry Laying Flocks (Testing and Registration etc) Order 1989. The Department does not hold a comprehensive list of egg producers.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports he received during June from laboratories conducting microbiological testing for salmonella of samples from hens where no growth was found.

  Mr. Maclean
  Full details of tests carried out in June are not available, but, from the reports received, the proportion of samples in which no microbial growth was reported was in the region of 5 per cent. The tests in question are designed to establish whether salmonella is present and will not necessarily show growth of other bacteria even when these are present.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any evidence of the abuse of the competitive exclusion product for salmonella developed by the Bristol Food Research Institute; and if he has any proposals to regulate its use.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no such evidence. If such a product were to be sold or supplied for a medicinal purpose, a licence would be required to be issued under the Medicines Act 1968. No such licence is currently in force for the product to which the hon. Member refers.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many poultry flocks with over 100 laying hens are registered in each of the counties of England and Wales; and how many of these have notified him of the results of testing for salmonella between(a) 1 January and 21 March and (b) 1 April and 30 June.

  Mr. Maclean
  Up to 27 June a total of 2,435 laying flocks have been registered in England and Wales. The details in the table refer to animal health offices, where registrations are dealt with, rather than counties.

  Registered persons are required to notify my Department with the results of tests for salmonella at 12-weekly intervals, commencing with the date after 2 April on which they first receive reports of any such tests. This information is being received and collated at the present time.

  Registered laying flocks in England and Wales

  Local Animal Health Office

  Laying flocks registered

  England

  Beverley

  49

  Bury St. Edmunds

  62

  Carlisle

  50

  Chelmsford

  118

  Crewe

  99

  Dorchester

  43

  Exeter

  97

  Gloucester

  53

  Guildford

  92

  Huntingdon

  50

  Leamington Spa

  65

  Leeds

  146

  Leicester

  32

  Lincoln

  107

  Maidstone

  140

  Newcastle

  86

  Northallerton

  114

  Norwich

  125

  Nottingham

  128

  Oxford

  133

  Preston

  139

  Shrewsbury

  58

  109

  Local Animal Health Office

  Laying flocks registered

  Stafford

  83

  Taunton

  48

  Trowbridge

  37

  Truro

  57

  Winchester

  69

  Worcester

  59

  Wales

  Caernarvon

  10

  Cardiff

  8

  Carmarthen

  38

  Llandrindod Wells

  17

  Ruthin

  23

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what names are used in European Community countries other than the United Kingdom to describe bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and whether this disease is present or endemic under these names in any European Community country.

  Mr. Maclean
  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been a notifiable disease in the European Community under that name since 1 April 1990 and to date has been confirmed only in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make it his policy to ban the tethering of sows in stalls; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has made an assessment of the animal welfare implications of the use of narrow stalls to contain sows; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has made an assessment of the space required to allow a sow to perform her natural functions, including grooming, turning and stretching; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council has undertaken an assessment of pig production systems. It concluded that stall and tether systems for dry sows fail to meet important welfare criteria including freedom to exercise and to display most normal behaviour patterns. It recommended that new stall or tether systems should be banned and that existing systems of this type should be phased out as soon as the Government are content that welfare related problems have been eliminated from the emerging alternative systems and that they are commercially viable.

  The Government have accepted these conclusions and are seeking to have them implemented through European Community legislation as soon as possible.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the licensing requirements which bovine somatotropin met before milk containing bovine somatotropin was allowed to be offered for sale to the general public.

  Mr. Maclean
  All milk contains natural BST. Milk from cows treated with manufactured BST may be offered 110
  for sale to the public if the treatment was carried out in accordance with an animal test certificate—ATC. Before ATCs were issued the Veterinary Products Committee examined all available data relating to the BST products concerned and concluded that they were of good quality and that their use in field trials would pose no threat to the health of consumers, to persons handling the product or to the environment.

  Field Sports
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to promote field sports such as fox hunting, deer hunting and hare hunting and coursing as a method of vermin control or for any other reason.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Hunting is one of several methods by which the populations of certain wild animals can be controlled. The Government's position is that the choice of method is a matter for the landowner and that participation in field sports is a matter for individual decision and conscience.

THE ARTS

  British Theatre Association
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he intends to take to secure accommodation and future support for the British Theatre Association and its library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I am in touch with the British Theatre Association and other interested parties and understand that a number of options are now being considered which should help to secure the future of the library. I have asked to be kept informed of developments.

PRIME MINISTER

  Political Union
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what decision was made at the Dublin meeting of the European Council on United Kingdom participation in a conference on political union.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to this House on 28 June. The United Kingdom will participate fully in the preparation for and in discussion at the intergovernmental conference.

  European Parliament
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions she has had with the leaders of other European Community states concerning the structure, functions and powers of the European Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to this House on 28 June about the European Council meeting in Dublin, at which the roles of the European Parliament and national parliaments were discussed in general terms.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the outcome of her discussions with Mr. Nelson Mandela with regard to the United Kingdom's contribution to the emergence of a just and equitable society in South Africa.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a very good exchange of views with Mr. Mandela on 4 July. Mr. Mandela expressed his appreciation of our efforts to secure his release and accepted our sincerity and determination to get rid of apartheid. My right hon. Friend's discussions with Mr. Mandela concentrated on examining the political and economic way ahead in South Africa.

  Divorce
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government have any plans to make divorce easier or more difficult to obtain(a) in England and (b) in Scotland.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  It would be premature to say what reform might be brought forward in England and Wales ahead of the English Law Commission's report later this year on divorce. In considering any proposals the Government will be concerned to support marriage and the family and to ensure that those contemplating divorce recognise in advance the consequences of divorce, especially for their children, and wherever possible either draw back from it or at least make arrangements to provide a firm basis for the future upbringing and support of their children.

  The Scottish Law Commission issued a report on reform of the ground for divorce in 1989 and recommended that the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 should be amended.

  These proposals are embodied in clause 53 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which is presently before the House of Commons.

  Engagements
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 July.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the economic summit in Houston.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the reduced availability of German and Japanese capital on the international market and its effect on long-term interest rates in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Data for the current and capital accounts o. Japan and Germany are published by the IMF in "International Financial Statistics". The availability of 112
  capital from Japan and Germany is one of a number of domestic and international influences on United Kingdom long-term interest rates.

  Royal Mint
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to the royal mint of the recent investigation into staff salaries carried out by Hay MSL.

  Mr. Ryder
  The cost of this study is commercially confidential.

  EC Contributions
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the various published estimates or projections by Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community in 1989; and if he will indicate the date on which each such estimate or projection was made.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: The "Statement on the 1990 Community Budget" —Cm. 1059 —which was published on 26 April 1990, included the outturn of £2,315 million for the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community in 1989. The previous forecast for the 1989 net contribution, £1,966 million, was contained in the "Statement on the 1989 Community Budget"—Cm. 680—published on 27 April 1989. In addition, the Central Statistical Office balance of payments press notices of 13 March and 13 June 1990 gave, on a slightly different basis from the annual statements, an estimated outturn of £2,301 million for the United Kingdom's 1989 net balance with the European Community. These forecasts are on a calendar year basis.

  The annual public expenditure White Paper includes calendar year forecasts and outturns of United Kingdom contributions and receipts arising out of successive budgets, irrespective of when receipts and payments occur.

  VAT
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to reconsider the list of items considered for exemption from value added tax.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: No.

  Government Shareholdings
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 463, on (a) the golden shares and (b) other shares currently owned by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: The Government hold special shares in the following companies: Britoil, Cable and Wireless; Jaguar; Sealink; British Telecom; British Aerospace; VSEL Consortium; British Gas; Rolls-Royce; BAA; British Steel; Anglian Water; Northumbrian Water; North West Water; Severn Trent; South West Water; Thames Water; Welsh Water; Wessex Water; and Yorkshire Water.

  Details of the Government's other shareholdings are given in the "Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts 1988–89: Supplementary Statements" (HC45). The 1989–90 supplementary statements will be laid before the House before the end of the year. In the case

  113
  of the 10 water plcs, the Water (Target Investment Limit) Order 1990, laid before the House on 21 May, gave the maximum limits, by percentage, of the Government's residual shareholding. The current market value of the shareholdings can be established from the International Stock Exchange's official list.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General how many booklets have been printed advising the public on the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid; and where they have been distributed.

  The Attorney-General
  No booklets advising the public on the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid have been produced.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General whether his Department has sponsored any advertising of the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  The Legal Aid Board, which is responsible for publicising the legal aid scheme, has not sponsored any advertising of the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration the Legal Aid Board has given to publicising the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  In paragraph 2.17 of its annual report, which was laid before Parliament on 25 June 1990, the Legal Aid Board reported that it was reviewing its publicity requirements. The board expects to complete its review during the current financial year and publicity for the European agreement on transmission of applications for legal aid is one of the topics to be considered.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General how many United Kingdom citizens have received legal aid in foreign countries under the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  Applications made by United Kingdom citizens under the European agreement on transmission of legal aid applications during the year 1 January to 31 December 1989 as follows:

  Great Britain (outside London)

  English metropolitan areas

  Other areas1

  All outside London

  Percentage increase in fares between 1985–86 and 1989

  (i) in cash terms

  2+56

  +20

  +29

  (ii) adjusted for general inflation3

  +29

  no change

  +7

  Journeys using adult single ticket4

  Average fare per journey in 1989 (pence)

  41p

  55p

  50p

  Average fare per mile in 1989 (pence)

  14p

  15p

  15p

  Average journey length

  2.9 miles

  3.6 miles

  3.3 miles

  1 English shire counties, Scotland and Wales.

  2 A sharp rise from a low level following the introduction of precept control in 1986–87. In 1989, fare levels in English metropolitan areas remained below those elsewhere.

  3 Using the retail prices index, which increased by 20 per cent., between 1985–86 and 1989.

  4 1985–86 national travel survey data adjusted using the appropriate stage fares index.

  114

  Transmitted

  1Granted

  England and Wales

  30

  10

  Northern Ireland

  3

  n/a

  Scotland

  1

  0

  United Kingdom

  34

  10

  1 Information received so far. Information relating to Northern Ireland is not available.

  Information relating to earlier years is not readily available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General whether his Department has supplied legal firms offering the legal aid scheme with details of the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  The Legal Aid Board publishes the "Legal Aid Handbook" each year. This guide to practitioners includes at note 52 of the notes for guidance detailed instructions on the preparation of applications including information on payment arrangements.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give the budget for publicising the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid.

  The Attorney-General
  The Legal Aid Board is currently reviewing its publicity requirements and although at present no part of its publicity budget is spent on publicising the European agreement on the transmission of applications for legal aid consideration will be given to this as part of the review.

TRANSPORT

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

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest information on local bus fares is in the table.

  Speed Limiters
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of coaches in the United Kingdom are now fitted with speed limiters; if he will make a statement about the benefits which have been secured for road users; and what is his policy with regard to speed limiters being fitted to heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  One hundred per cent. of those first used in Great Britain after April 1984. By next April, all coaches first used since April 1974 will also have to be fitted with limiters, and I am glad that the Bus and Coach Council is urging its members to act ahead of this deadline. It benefits all road users' safety if maximum speed limits are observed. We are currently looking into the merits of the European Commission proposal that speed limiters should also be required on heavy goods vehicles.

  Air Services
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects his recent agreement with the United States Government in respect of air services to take effect.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Documentation is being completed as quickly as possible and the agreement should come into full effect immediately thereafter. It will however probably take further time for airlines to plan and introduce new services.

  Oil Field Workers (Insurance)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory provisions cover the insuring of oil field workers carried to rigs by helicopters.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. However any helicopter operator serving United Kingdom oil and gas fields on the North sea requires an air transport licence from the Civil Aviation Authority. In deciding whether to grant such a licence the authority takes into account the financial arrangements of the operator, including the insurance arrangements which have been made.

  Airlines
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that the operating opportunities for American airlines within the United Kingdom and Europe are reciprocated for British airlines in the United States of America.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We and the United States Government are jointly to study liberalisation of United Kingdom-United States air services arrangements: issues of the sort my hon. Friend raises are bound to be discussed.

  Driving Test
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what revisions are planned to the Department of Transport driving test in preparation for 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  The European Commission published its proposals for a second directive on driver licensing in 1989. My Department consulted subsequently with 116
  interested parties on the implications of these proposals for driver testing and training. I shall announce the outcome of that consultation shortly.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to restrict the register of approved driving instructors.

  Mr. Atkins
  Over the past two years the qualifying examinations for the register have been made more thorough. There are no plans to make any further alterations or to restrict entry in order to limit numbers in the profession.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a list of categories of people excluded from becoming Department of Transport approved driving instructors.

  Mr. Atkins
  The grounds on which the registrar of approved driving instructors may refuse to enter a person's name in the register are given in section 125 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are(a) the number of people admitted to the register of approved driving instructors and (b) the total number registered in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Atkins
  The numbers at the end of each calendar year were as follows:

  New ADIs

  Numbers on the register

  1980

  2,490

  23,562

  1981

  2,476

  25,098

  1982

  2,262

  26,101

  1983

  2,281

  26,942

  1984

  2,574

  28,090

  1985

  2,290

  28,675

  1986

  3,147

  30,069

  1987

  2,862

  31,336

  1988

  11,925

  232,381

  1989

  12,421

  332,931

  1990

  41,081

  433,080

  1 Figures for new ADIs exclude those joining the register between August 1988 and February 1989 when computerisation of the Register was taking place.

  2 To end July.

  3 A computer count revealed that there has been an overcount during the past of about 1,000.

  4 To end of May.

  Internal Service Operations
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries with which reciprocal internal United Kingdom and Europe service operations have been agreed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No air services agreements containing cabotage rights exist between the United Kingdom and European partners.

  Urban Roads
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the environmental measures taken to protect residents when trunk roads have been constructed or updated in urban areas since 1979.
  117
  Mr. Atkins
  Measures to mitigate the impact of a new or improved road, and to enhance road safety, form an integral part of our planning and design. Each scheme is considered separately, and there is a wide range of possible measures appropriate in different circumstances. We aim to improve on our existing good practice in minimising the impact of new roads.

  Local residents are consulted on route proposals at an early stage. Increased use of discretionary powers to provide noise insulation to dwellings was announced earlier this year.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sections of trunk roads passing through urban areas have been constructed or updated in the west midlands since 1979; and if he will give the daily flow of(a) cars, (b) vans and light lorries and (c) heavy long distance lorries for the sections of these trunk roads which have (i) the heaviest and (ii) the lightest flow of traffic.

  Mr. Atkins
  There has been no major new on-line construction or other significant updating of trunk roads in urban areas of the west midlands since 1979. Small-scale new works and improvements to ease congestion or improve road safety are too numerous to list in detail.

  A50, Stoke-on-Trent
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimate of the daily flow of(a) cars, (b) vans and light lorries and (c) heavy long distance lorries on the A50 at the Meir crossroads, Stoke-on-Trent; and what was the date of the traffic survey on which the estimate was based.

  Mr. Atkins
  Based on a survey carried out on 22 March 1990, the 12-hour two-way flow on the A50 east of Meir is:

  Number

  Cars

  14,648

  Van and light commercial vehicles

  2,760

  Medium and heavy commercial vehicles

  3,038

  TOTAL

  20,446

  The estimated annual average daily 24-hour flow is 27,193.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the forecast figures for the daily flow of(a) cars, (b) vans and light lorries and (c) heavy long distance lorries on the A50 at the Meir crossroads, Stoke-on-Trent, in the year 2000.

  Mr. Atkins
  The forecast annual average daily 24-hours two-way flow on the A50 east of Meir is:

  2000 Low

  2000 High

  Cars and vans

  31,800

  34,300

  Other goods vehicles (> 30 cwt)

  5,900

  6,400

  TOTAL

  37,700

  40,700

  The forecast proportion of long distance other goods vehicles trips at Meir is approximately 36 per cent.

  Winchester Bypass
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths, (b) serious injuries and (c) minor injuries have been recorded for each of the last 10 years in respect of accidents on the Winchester bypass; and what is the recorded accident rate per 1,000 vehicle miles travelled.

  Mr. Atkins
  The only information readily available is as follows:

  (a) The number of recorded accidents on the A33 Winchester bypass from its junction with A272 (M3) to A31 Compton in each of the last six years were:

  Fatal injuries

  Serious injuries

  Slight injuries

  1984

  2

  8

  35

  1985

  3

  8

  23

  1986

  0

  12

  30

  1987

  1

  5

  34

  1988

  1

  3

  22

  1989

  0

  3

  29

  (b) the estimated accident rate over the last three years is 0.0002 per 1,000 vehicles miles travelled.

  InterCity Routes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the impact of Government investment on the fastest scheduled journey time on InterCity routes in(a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c) in the current year.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: InterCity journey times improved significantly between 1974 and 1979 as a result of investment in high speed diesel trains approved in 1973. Electrification approved in 1984 is bringing further reductions in journey times on the east coast main line.

  A1
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the projected traffic flow figures for vehicles by category travelling north on the Al from Newcastle following its upgrading to motorway status south of Newcastle.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: A precise assessment has not been carried out for projected traffic flow figures for vehicles by category travelling north from Newcastle upon Tyne following the upgrading of the Al. However, a study for routes south of Edinburgh commissioned by the Scottish Office indicated that completion of a motorway link to Newcastle would not lead to any substantial transfer of traffic with the majority of long-distance travelling from England to Scotland continuing to use the west coast motorway system.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the projected traffic flow figures for vehicles by category travelling north on the Al from Newcastle for each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: Traffic predictions allow for both low and high growth. Based upon 1989 values the annual average daily traffic prediction on the Al north of Newcastle are as follows:
  119

  Location

  Year

  Low

  High

  Between Newcastle and Morpeth

  1991

  21,350

  21,970

  1992

  21,780

  22,700

  1993

  22,210

  23,430

  1994

  22,630

  24,170

  1995

  23,060

  24,900

  1996

  23,490

  25,630

  1997

  23,910

  26,370

  1998

  24,340

  27,100

  1999

  24,770

  27,830

  2000

  25,190

  28,570

  The proportions of heavy goods vehicles are expected to range from 8 to 12 per cent.

  Location

  Year

  Low

  High

  Between Alnwick and Berwick

  1991

  6,770

  6,970

  1992

  6,900

  7,200

  1993

  7,040

  7,430

  1994

  7,180

  7,670

  1995

  7,310

  7,900

  1996

  7,450

  8,130

  1997

  7,580

  8,370

  1998

  7,720

  8,600

  1999

  7,850

  8,830

  2000

  7,990

  9,070

  The proportions of heavy goods vehicles are expected to range from 25 to 39 per cent.

  Planning
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now refund the costs and other expenses funded by the Laven Glaze Group, South Brent, Dartmoor, as a result of the abortive planning appeal made by Shell UK Oil Limited, regarding land adjacent to Carew filling station which ended on 6 September 1989; and if he will make a statement as to the reason for the delay in carrying out his obligations.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: My Department has no legal obligation to refund the costs of the South Brent and Lower Glaze Group in relation to this planning appeal by Shell UK Ltd. My Department has, however, decided to pay 50 per cent. of the appeal costs and is paying the objectors' costs in full, on behalf of itself and Shell. It will also pay half of Shell's costs, when these are quantified fully, less the element already paid to the objectors. The parties will have been informed by letter of this decision and the payments will follow.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make it compulsory for catalytic converters to be fitted to all new cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: Vehicle regulations of this sort need agreement within the European Economic Community. Now that this has been reached, the regulations laid before the House last month will mean that from 1993 onwards effectively all new petrol engined cars will need to be fitted with catalysts. Details are given in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 8 June at columns 722–23.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Courthouse, Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the opening of the new courthouse in Basildon is on schedule.

  Mr. John Patten
  Yes. I am very pleased to confirm that the official opening is due to take place on 30 November 1990, as arranged.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce a system of statutory regulation for the private security industry;

  (2) if he will publish the membership of the Home Office working group on self-regulation of the private security industry and the date when the group's report will be published.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are considering, in the light of the report of the working group on the self-regulation of the private security industry, a range of options for improving the regulation of the industry. The working group included representatives from the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Security Industry Association, the International Professional Security Association and the National Supervisory Council for Intruder Alarms.

  When consideration of this issue has been completed, we will decide what circulation to give the working group's report.

  Guard Dogs
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions exist in respect of the length of time a guard dog can work before it is rested.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The use of guard dogs is regulated by the Guard Dogs Act 1975. Section 1 of the Act defines the circumstances in which a guard dog must be secured or under the control of a handler. Neither this section, nor the remaining sections of the Act which have not been brought into force, include explicit restrictions on the length of time for which a guard dog can work before it is rested.

  Forensic Pathology
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the Government's response to the recent working party on forensic pathology.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are still considering our response to the working party's report and we will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Child Care
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the strategy of the ministerial groups on women's issues to encourage the growth of child care facilities.

  Mr. John Patten
  The ministerial group on women's issues believes that high quality in the provision of child
  121
  care should be encouraged. To this end, the group has agreed a range of measures designed to maintain and improve the standards of child care for those parents who choose to combine their family responsibilities with employment opportunities.

  Summaries of the initiatives on child care agreed by the group are contained in the press releases issued after the group's meetings in April 1989 and February 1990, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Lottery Tickets
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the directors of the state lottery companies in Germany regarding the sending of lottery tickets to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 8 May at column 30 to his earlier question.

  As I have further explained in correspondence with my hon. Friend, the directors have also suggested that action by them to penalise agents who continued to try to promote the lotteries here might be disputed by the agents on the ground that European Community law overrides both our 1976 Act and the lotteries' own operating rules; although there appears to be no specific or related judicial decision on this, it is our view that the prohibitions on foreign lotteries in the 1976 Act are compatible with EC law; Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have impounded huge quantities of promotional material for the lotteries

  Management consultants

  Contract details

  Start

  Finish

  Coopers Lybrand Deloitte

  Study and estimate of costs associated with the start-up and running of a magistrates courts agency.

  1 May 1990

  31 August 1990

  PA Consultancy Group

  Training for area managers in connection with reorganisation of the prison service.

  February 1990 (This contract is likely to be extended to October 1990.)

  July 1990

  PA

  Study and assistance in moving the forensic science service towards agency status by April 1991.

  July 1989

  March 1991

  Price Waterhouse

  Provision of financial advice on the privatisation of the IBA terrestrial transmission system.

  26 February 1990

  31 December 1990

  Sudbury Consultants

  Leadership training

  December 1989

  September 1990

  Talisman

  Public relations for the safer cities project, Rochdale

  1 November 1989

  31 October 1990

  VISTA Communications

  Survey of key communications systems in the prison service

  8 June 1990

  Autumn 1990

  Watts, Reginald Associates

  Marketing of fire service college

  November 1989

  July 1990

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long from arrival at Lunar house or the nationality department at Liverpool it takes for a letter to reach a case worker.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At Lunar house the current average time taken for non-directly addressed letters to reach caseworkers is eight working days from initial receipt and 10 working days for citizenship applications which are routed via accounts branch for the extraction of fees.
  122
  sent here by post; and I understand that some court proceedings are imminent in this country relating to the seizure of some of this material.

  Community Charge Defaulters, Coventry
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Coventry courts have so far processed against poll tax defaulters.

  Mr. John Patten
  No information on the processing of community charge enforcement cases in the magistrates courts is yet available. The Home Office is conducting a survey of the workload consequences for magistrates courts; the first return covers the period 1 April to 30 September 1990, and results will be available at the end of 1990 or beginning of 1991.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the contracts awarded by his Department to management consultants on which work is currently in progress(a) when they started, (b) when they are expected to be completed and (c) their cost.

  Mr. Waddington
  Information about contract costs still extant is a matter of commercial confidentiality which it would not be proper to disclose. The details of contracts with management consultants on which work is currently in progress are as follows:

  Directly addressed items reach caseworkers the same day. At the Liverpool nationality office letters are opened and passed to caseworkers within 24 hours.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of applicants for naturalisation, registration or immigration die before a decision is made on their case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not available.
  123
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it takes for 100 letters to be opened at Lunar house and the nationality department at Liverpool.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On average it takes each of the 20 staff in the Lunar house post room engaged on this work five minutes to open, date, stamp, check contents, identify any omissions, remove any valuables, prepare acknowledgement and route one item to its next destination. No information is available for correspondence opening averages in the Liverpool nationality office.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of naturalisation, registration or immigration can be dealt with concurrently within the same office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not possible to provide any such estimate.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of letters received at Lunar house, Croydon, and the nationality department at Liverpool on the first day of each month for(a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c)

  Mr. Peler Lloyd
  Following is the information:

  Letters received and opened in IND post room, Lunar house

  1988

  1989

  1990

  January

  11,716

  1,394

  1,496

  February

  11,846

  1,577

  1,846

  March

  11,964

  1,647

  1,532

  April

  1,357

  1,783

  1,489

  May

  1,198

  1,688

  1,549

  June

  1,586

  1,395

  1,577

  July

  1,326

  1,310

  1,528

  August

  1,662

  1,661

  —

  September

  1,372

  1,711

  —

  October

  1,957

  1,999

  —

  November

  2,099

  2,057

  —

  December

  1,398

  1,464

  —

  1 These figures do not include an estimated 14,044 applications received in the first quarter of 1988 which, because of the then backlog were not counted on a daily basis.

  Notes:

  The table does not include letters addressed to individuals, rooms or groups which currently average 1,400 per day. These are not opened in the post room but redirected on receipt to the addressee.

  The information requested is not available in respect of the Liverpool nationality office.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the percentage of all cases where the applicant for naturalisation, immigration or registration is between the ages of one and five years, and every interval of five years through 80 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The only readily available information relates to applicants for citizenship whose dates of birth are recorded on the nationality division computer. The number of applicants for citizenship in each age band, expressed as a percentage of the number of outstanding citizenship applications is as follows:

  Age band years

  percentage

  1 to 5

  2.3

  6 to 10

  3.9

  11 to 15

  4.9

  16 to 20

  6.2

  124

  Age band years

  percentage

  21 to 25

  8.0

  26 to 30

  14.2

  31 to 35

  17.1

  36 to 40

  14.2

  41 to 45

  10.0

  46 to 50

  6.1

  51 to 55

  4.5

  56 to 60

  3.3

  61 to 65

  2.4

  66 to 70

  1.5

  71 to 75

  0.6

  76 to 80

  0.3

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding immigration applications there are at Lunar house; what time savings in dealing with applications from(a) students, (b) family members in the United Kingdom applying for variation of stay, (c) settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts and (d) asylum-seekers have been achieved by the 1988 changes in procedures and practice; and what are the average times applicants in each category might expect to wait before a decision.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of March 1990, there were about 28,000 cases in the immigration caseworking groups, including eastern European cases, and referred entry clearance applications, the majority of which were under consideration or the subject of further inquiries and about 16,300 cases in the refugee unit.

  A number of changes in procedure and practice have been introduced over the last two years in order to reduce the level of outstanding applications and reduce the time taken to process them. Information on administrative time savings as a result of these changes is not available in the form requested.

  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an application and the decision, for cases decided in caseworking groups and the public inquiry offices, in the first quarter of 1990 was two and a half months for students and nine and a half months for refugee status. Information on average waiting times for family members in the United Kingdom for variation of leave and for settlement entry clearance applications referred from overseas posts is not available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from hon. Members during each quarter of 1989 and the first quarter of 1990 to delay the removal of passengers refused entry at British ports of entry; and, for each period, how many representations resulted in (i) the delay of the passenger's removal for up to a week, (ii) the delay of the passenger's removal for more than a week and (iii) reversal of the immigration officer's decision.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 12 March at column 16.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) single entry and (b) multiple entry visit visas were (i) received, (ii) granted, (iii) refused initially and (iv) granted at appeal at each post in the Indian sub-continent, Ghana, Nigeria, Turkey and Jamaica in each quarter of 1989 and the first

  125
  quarter of 1990; and what was the delay between application and interview for those whose applications were felt to need a second or long interview at each of the above posts in (1) June 1989, (2) January 1990 and (3) June 1990 or the nearest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on applications in Jamaica for a visit entry clearance, and separate information on applications in the other countries for single entry and multiple entry visit visas, are not available centrally. The other information requested is given in the tables.

  Table 1—persons applying for a visit visa to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Applications

  Of which:

  New received1

  Granted

  Granted on appeal

  Refused initially

  DHAKA

  1989

  1st quarter

  2,130

  1,590

  4—

  420

  2nd quarter

  3,230

  2,490

  4—

  610

  3rd quarter

  3,460

  2,720

  4—

  650

  4th quarter

  2,500

  1,660

  4—

  700

  Year

  11,330

  8,450

  4—

  2,390

  1990

  1st quarter

  2,260

  1,500

  4—

  620

  NEW DELHI

  1989

  1st quarter

  8,160

  6,700

  30

  1,040

  2nd quarter

  17,010

  14,770

  50

  1,620

  3rd quarter

  12,780

  9,450

  50

  1,580

  4th quarter

  7,660

  6,130

  30

  1,100

  Year

  45,620

  36,960

  150

  5,350

  1990

  1st quarter

  8,980

  6,990

  40

  1,420

  BOMBAY

  1989

  1st quarter

  7,290

  6,850

  10

  460

  2nd quarter

  18,050

  17,070

  10

  830

  3rd quarter

  10,030

  8,970

  20

  660

  4th quarter

  5,660

  4,970

  20

  520

  Year

  41,030

  37,860

  50

  2,470

  1990

  1st quarter

  7,990

  7,420

  20

  800

  CALCUTTA

  1989

  1st quarter

  1,110

  1,090

  5—

  20

  2nd quarter

  3,360

  3,290

  5—

  40

  3rd quarter

  2,470

  2,420

  4—

  50

  4th quarter

  850

  820

  4—

  30

  Year

  7,780

  7,620

  5—

  140

  1990

  1st quarter

  1,160

  1,110

  5—

  30

  MADRAS

  1989

  1st quarter

  1,830

  1,780

  4—

  30

  2nd quarter

  4,100

  4,080

  4—

  30

  3rd quarter

  2,860

  2,830

  5—

  40

  4th quarter

  1,320

  1,270

  4—

  40

  Year

  10,120

  9,960

  5—

  140

  126

  Applications

  Of which:

  New received1

  Granted

  Granted on appeal

  Refused initially

  1990

  1st quarter

  1,930

  1,900

  5—

  40

  ISLAMABAD

  1989

  1st quarter

  6,130

  4,700

  10

  1,240

  2nd quarter

  11,630

  10,360

  40

  1,770

  3rd quarter

  11,700

  9,180

  60

  2,190

  4th quarter

  6,970

  4,730

  60

  1,660

  Year

  36,420

  28,970

  170

  6,860

  1990

  1st quarter

  7,770

  5,100

  70

  1,440

  KARACHI

  1989

  1st quarter

  4,200

  3,570

  5—

  480

  2nd quarter

  9,680

  8,710

  5—

  700

  3rd quarter

  7,840

  6,870

  4—

  790

  4th quarter

  4,810

  3,970

  10

  660

  Year

  26,530

  23,120

  10

  2,630

  1990

  1st quarter

  4,510

  3,690

  10

  680

  ACCRA

  1989

  1st quarter

  2,390

  1,930

  5—

  270

  2nd quarter

  3,760

  3,150

  5—

  460

  3rd quarter

  4,390

  3,960

  10

  340

  4th quarter

  2,850

  2,230

  5—

  290

  Year

  13,380

  11,270

  10

  1,370

  1990

  1st quarter

  2,790

  2,190

  10

  600

  LAGOS

  1989

  1st quarter

  9,190

  6,240

  4—

  1,410

  2nd quarter

  15,980

  10,930

  4—

  2,180

  3rd quarter

  18,290

  12,090

  5—

  2,070

  4th quarter

  10,760

  7,200

  4—

  1,640

  Year

  54,220

  36,460

  5—

  7,290

  1990

  1st quarter

  10,380

  7,190

  5—

  1,910

  KADUNA

  1989

  1st quarter

  1,070

  880

  4—

  140

  2nd quarter

  2,060

  1,760

  5—

  210

  3rd quarter

  2,070

  1,650

  4—

  250

  4th quarter

  1,640

  1,350

  4—

  220

  Year

  6,840

  5,360

  5—

  830

  1990

  1st quarter

  1,650

  1,360

  4—

  310

  ANKARA

  1989

  3rd quarter2

  3,080

  2,820

  4—

  230

  4th quarter

  2,450

  2,150

  4—

  250

  Year

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  127

  Applications

  Of which:

  Newly received1

  Granted

  Granted on appeal

  Refused initially

  1990

  1st quarter

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  ISTANBUL

  1989

  3rd quarter2

  7,710

  7,470

  4—

  70

  4th quarter

  36,000

  35,800

  4—

  70

  Year

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  1990

  1st quarter

  35,200

  35,000

  4—

  60

  1 Including applications subsequently withdrawn.

  2 Including period 23 to 30 June 1989; corresponding data are not available prior to 23 June 1989, when the visa requirement was introduced.

  3 Estimated.

  4 Nil.

  5 Five or fewer.

  6 Not available centrally.

  Table 2: Waiting time for persons applying for a visit visa who required a lengthy interview

  Number of days

  Post

  Waiting time for person interviewed at end of period

  June 1989

  January 1990

  May 1990

  Dhaka

  6—

  6—

  6—

  New Delhi

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Bombay

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Calcutta

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Madras

  6— or 1

  1

  6—

  Islamabad

  7

  10

  10

  Karachi

  6—

  6—

  6—

  Accra

  7—

  351

  42

  Lagos

  1

  11

  7—

  Kaduna

  6—

  61—

  63—

  Ankara

  94

  10

  15

  Istanbul

  94

  16

  2

  1 At end December 1989

  2 At end June 1990

  3 At end March 1990

  4 At end July 1989

  5 At end February 1990

  6— same day.

  7— not available centrally

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding applications there were at Lunar house and the nationality department at Liverpool in each month of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his earlier question on 25 June at column 36. The nationality figures in that reply include applications outstanding at Liverpool.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of(a) Jamaica, (b) Turkey, (c) Morocco, (d) the United States of America, (e) Australia, (f) Malaysia, (g) Hong Kong, (h) Guyana, (i) Trinidad, (j) Colombia, (k) Algeria, (j) Barbados and (m) Tunisia were (i) granted and (ii) refused permission to enter the United Kingdom at ports of entry, in each quarter since January 1989 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is given in the table:
  128

  Total passenger admissions and those refused leave to enter and removed by selected nationalities

  Numbers

  First Quarter

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  1989

  Jamaica

  6,230

  236

  Turkey

  17,000

  618

  Morocco

  3,520

  253

  United States of America

  442,000

  261

  Australia

  72,400

  35

  Malaysia

  12,400

  93

  Hong Kong (BDTCs and BN(O)s)

  14,500

  33

  Guyana

  1,080

  11

  Trinidad and Tobago

  3,260

  18

  Colombia

  3,320

  116

  Algeria

  4,120

  391

  Barbados

  1,490

  6

  Tunisia

  1,870

  50

  Total passenger admissions and those refused leave to enter and removed by selected nationalities

  Numbers

  Second Quarter

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  1989

  Jamaica

  8,310

  195

  Turkey

  16,900

  1,082

  Morocco

  4,160

  305

  United States of America

  787,000

  280

  Australia

  129,000

  40

  Malaysia

  16,800

  261

  Hong Kong (BDTCs and BN(O)s)

  14,600

  45

  Guyana

  1,460

  9

  Trinidad and Tobago

  4,200

  16

  Colombia

  5,490

  196

  Algeria

  4,560

  543

  Barbados

  2,260

  7

  Tunisia

  1,980

  42

  Total passenger admissions and those refused leave to enter and removed by selected nationalities

  Number

  Third Quarter

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  1989

  Jamaica

  11,700

  202

  Turkey

  20,800

  286

  Morocco

  9,610

  1,051

  United States of America

  877,000

  337

  Australia

  154,000

  38

  Malaysia

  25,800

  141

  Hong Kong (BDTCs and BN(O)s)

  28,200

  49

  Guyana

  2,360

  10

  Trinidad and Tobago

  6,410

  24

  Colombia

  6,460

  194

  Algeria

  8,380

  1,198

  Barbados

  4,120

  12

  Tunisia

  2,550

  58

  129

  Total passenger admissions and those refused leave to enter and removed by selected nationalities

  Numbers

  Fourth quarter

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  1989

  Jamaica

  5,920

  170

  Turkey

  15,600

  122

  Morocco

  5,100

  466

  United States of America

  569,000

  270

  Australia

  95,600

  33

  Malaysia

  17,200

  123

  Hong Kong (BDTCs and BN(O)s)

  12,600

  51

  Guyana

  1,330

  14

  Trinidad and Tobago

  3,670

  18

  Colombia

  3,710

  133

  Algeria

  4,570

  961

  Barbados

  1,640

  6

  Tunisia

  2,170

  60

  Total passenger admissions and those refused leave to enter and removed by selected nationalities

  Numbers

  Total

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  1989

  Jamaica

  32,200

  803

  Turkey

  70,300

  2,108

  Morocco

  22,400

  2,075

  United States of America

  2,670,000

  1,148

  Australia

  451,000

  146

  Malaysia

  72,200

  618

  Hong Kong (BDTCs and BN(O)s)

  69,900

  178

  Guyana

  6,230

  44

  Trinidad and Tobago

  17,500

  76

  Colombia

  19,000

  639

  Algeria

  21,600

  3,093

  Barbados

  9,510

  31

  Tunisia

  8,570

  210

  First Quarter

  Admissions

  Refused and removed

  1990

  Jamaica

  5,530

  160

  Turkey

  16,800

  82

  Morocco

  4,550

  353

  United States of America

  506,000

  313

  Australia

  80,000

  45

  Malaysia

  13,600

  107

  Hong Kong (BDTCs and BN(O)s)

  15,000

  40

  Guyana

  1,080

  15

  Trinidad and Tobago

  3,320

  32

  Colombia

  3,300

  130

  Algeria

  4,880

  748

  Barbados

  1,300

  6

  Tunisia

  2,030

  81

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were received into prison department establishments under Immigration Act powers during(a) 1988 and (b) 1989, by individual prison establishment; what was the average daily population of persons so detained in each of those years; what was the average length of time spent in detention by persons so detained in each of those years; and whether he will give a breakdown by nationality of persons so detained for each of those years.
  130
  Mr. Mellor
  Information about detainees received into prison service establishments in England and Wales under the Immigration Act 1971 in 1988 is given by establishment and nationality in the tables. Similar information for 1989 is not yet available. The average period of detention completed by such persons in 1989 is provisionally estimated as nearly five weeks. The average population was 157 in 1989, including persons originally received for a criminal offence. The average population and the average length of detention of detainees in prison service establishments in 1988 were published in tables 1.1 and 6.6 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales" —Cm 825—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Receptions of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 into prison service establishments in England and Wales in 1988: by establishment

  Establishment

  1Number

  Remand centers

  Ashford

  1

  Brockhill

  2

  Hull

  2

  Latchmere House

  917

  Low Newton

  1

  Manchester

  1

  Pucklechurch

  3

  Risley

  25

  Winchester

  1

  Local prisons

  Bedford

  8

  Birmingham

  33

  Bristol

  15

  Brixton

  16

  Canterbury

  28

  Cardiff

  4

  Dorchester

  4

  Durham

  21

  Exeter

  1

  Gloucester

  4

  Holloway

  19

  Hull

  18

  Leeds

  16

  Leicester

  56

  Lewes

  3

  Lincoln

  2

  New Hall

  1

  Norwich

  3

  Oxford

  4

  Pentonville

  31

  Reading

  4

  Shrewsbury

  4

  Swansea

  2

  Winchester

  9

  All prison service establishments

  1,259

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  Receptions of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in 1988: by nationality

  Nationality

  Number1

  Nigeria

  268

  Ghana

  142

  India

  116

  Turkey

  111

  Pakistan

  61

  Bangladesh

  50

  Sri Lanka

  45

  Algeria

  35

  Morocco

  35

  Iran

  27

  131

  Nationality

  Number1

  Jamaica

  27

  Iraq

  17

  Somalia

  176

  Lebanon

  15

  Cyprus

  14

  Malaysia

  13

  Uganda

  12

  Hong Kong

  11

  Colombia

  10

  Portugal

  10

  France

  9

  Sierra Leone

  9

  Brazil

  8

  Egypt

  8

  Yugoslavia

  8

  United States of America

  7

  Libya

  6

  China

  5

  Poland

  5

  Seychelles

  5

  Other nationalities2

  114

  Not recorded

  40

  All nationalities

  1,259

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost

  2 Where fewer than five were recorded

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained under Immigration Act powers for a period of more than two months on completion of a custodial sentence during(a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c) the first quarter of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The figures, excluding deportation cases who served a custodial sentence of seven days or less for whom the information is not readily available, are as follows:

  Persons

  1988

  11

  1989

  16

  11990

  2

  1 First quarter.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were recommended for deportation with no custodial sentence during 1989 and the first quarter of 1990; and in how many such cases the courts directed release(a) subject to conditions and (b) without conditions.

  Total numbers of persons newly detained at each location during the month shown

  Month

  Harmondsworth detention center

  Queen's building

  Beehive

  Haslar

  January 1989

  252

  219

  255

  —

  February 1989

  214

  210

  229

  —

  March 1989

  215

  235

  137

  —

  April 1989

  191

  225

  280

  —

  May 1989

  234

  244

  308

  —

  June 1989

  180

  185

  223

  —

  July 1989

  174

  202

  195

  117

  August 1989

  261

  220

  258

  72

  September 1989

  351

  229

  241

  78

  October 1989

  434

  196

  264

  78

  November 1989

  485

  205

  196

  81

  December 1989

  428

  204

  236

  95

  January 1990

  420

  175

  224

  68

  February 1990

  272

  178

  131

  86

  March 1990

  492

  225

  211

  77

  132
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During 1989, a total of 86 persons were recommended for deportation by the courts with no custodial sentence and a total of 13 persons during the first quarter of 1990. The other information requested is no longer collected centrally and is not readily available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons detained under Immigration Act powers applied to his Department to be allowed to depart voluntarily under the supervised departure provisions of the immigration rules in each quarter since January 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information on the numbers of persons removed under the supervised departure procedures for 1989 is published in table 14 of the statistical bulletin issue 8/90 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1989" and more recently in table 18 of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration Statistics United Kingdom 1989"—Cm. 1124—copies of both of which are in the Library. The available information for 1990 is given in the table. Most of these persons would have been detained prior to departure. A number would have been subject to restrictions as an alternative to detention but such cases could be separately identified only at disproportionate cost.

  Number of persons removed under the supervised departure procedures by category of case in the first quarter of 1990

  Period

  Breach of conditions of leave to enter or remain (Section 3(5)a)

  Following court recommendation (Section 3(6))

  Total number of persons

  19901

  309

  3

  312

  1 First quarter.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were (i) the total numbers detained and (ii) the average occupancy in(a) Harmondsworth detention centre, (b) the Harmondsworth annex, (c) Queen's building, (d) the Beehive, Gatwick, and (e) Her Majesty's prison, Haslar, for each month from January 1989 to the nearest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is as follows:
  133

  Month

  Harmondsworth detention centre

  Queen's building

  Beehive

  Haslar

  April 1990

  359

  150

  135

  56

  May 1990

  358

  155

  97

  78

  Notes:

  (i) Some persons may have been detained at more than one location within the same month.

  (ii) Harmondsworth detention centre figures relate to both buildings DA and annex JA.

  (iii) HMP Haslar was used for immigration detention purposes from 28 June 1989.

  Average occupancy figures

  Harmondsworth

  building DA

  JA Annex

  Queen's building

  Gatwick Beehive

  Haslar

  January 1989

  63

  29

  15

  15

  —

  February 1989

  63

  30

  15

  14

  —

  March 1989

  60

  30

  15

  14

  —

  April 1989

  64

  29

  15

  14

  —

  May 1989

  64

  30

  14

  15

  —

  June 1989

  65

  30

  15

  16

  —

  July 1989

  65

  30

  15

  14

  75

  August 1989

  63

  30

  14

  13

  87

  September 1989

  64

  29

  15

  14

  90

  October 1989

  55

  29

  14

  13

  71

  November 1989

  51

  28

  14

  12

  72

  December 1989

  54

  28

  13

  14

  81

  January 1990

  50

  26

  13

  13

  63

  February 1990

  55

  26

  13

  9

  76

  March 1990

  48

  25

  14

  12

  79

  April 1990

  55

  25

  12

  9

  82

  May 1990

  57

  25

  10

  11

  87

  Note: HMP Haslar was used for immigration detention purposes from 28 June 1989.

  Late Night Trading
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to legitimise the existing pattern of late night trading.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on 23 May at columns 178–79.

  Injuries (Police Custody)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people by ethnic origin have(a) died and (b) been injured while detained in police custody over the past 12 months and the past 24 months, or the nearest equivalent periods for which figures are available; and what were the causes of these deaths and injuries, broken down by the ethnic origin of the victims.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information about persons who have died in police custody, including the cause of death, is published in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. No record is kept of the person's ethnic origin. Information about injuries is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will provide a breakdown by nationality of the numbers of passengers seeking political asylum who were detained under Immigration Act powers in 1989 in(a) prison department establishments and (b) immigration detention accommodation;

  (2) how many passengers seeking political asylum in (a) 1988, (b) 1989 and (c) 1990 up to the nearest available date were granted temporary admission.
  134
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance in order to seek asylum in the United Kingdom were(a) received and (b) granted, by country, during 1989 and the first quarter of 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on applications for asylum in the United Kingdom made abroad is given in the table:

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

  Number of persons

  Applications received

  Grants of asylum3

  Nationality

  1989

  First quarter 1990

  1989

  First quarter 1990

  Afghanistan

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Angola

  5

  —

  —

  —

  China

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Czechoslovakia

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Ethiopia

  15

  *

  5

  5

  Ghana

  5

  —

  *

  *

  India

  15

  *

  —

  —

  Iran

  10

  5

  10

  —

  Iraq

  15

  —

  10

  —

  Lebanon

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Libya

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Malawi

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Romania

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  75

  5

  50

  10

  South Africa

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Sri Lanka

  115

  15

  *

  —

  Sudan

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Turkey

  225

  —

  30

  5

  Uganda

  110

  *

  —

  *

  135

  Applications received

  Grants of asylum3

  Nationality

  1989

  First quarter 1990

  1989

  First quarter 1990

  Zaire

  15

  *

  5

  —

  Zimbabwe

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Nationality uncertain

  *

  *

  5

  *

  Total

  615

  35

  135

  25

  1 In addition a further 65 applications in 1989, and 20 in the first quarter of 1990, largely by nationals of Afghanistan were made to the British High Commission in New Delhi, and are being processed locally. No grants of asylum were made during this time.

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

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

  Police (Damages Claims)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for damages against the police have been lodged in the past 12 months or the last complete period of 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will give in the most convenient form(a) the ethnic origin of the claimants, (b) the average level of damages claimed and (c) the reasons for the claims.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Poland
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he is taking to encourage joint ventures by British companies in Poland;

  (2) what steps he is taking to encourage the establishment of commercial and business know-how funds in Poland.

  Mrs. Chalker
  With the agreement of the Polish authorities our highest priorities for the know-how fund are areas directly related to the fostering of a market driven economy—banking and financial services, energy, industrial regeneration, management, accountancy and the teaching of English. A substantial programme of work is now being implemented. In addition, we are introducing schemes under the know-how fund to support pre-investment feasibility studies and the training of potential east European joint venture partners. A number of proposals under these schemes relating to Poland have been received and are being considered.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manhole Covers
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is the total volume of manhole covers imported from India in 1989; and what is that amount as a percentage of the United Kingdom foundries' production for the same period;

  (2) what was the tonnage of manhole covers imported from India in December 1989; and what information he has on the percentage that were defective.
  136
  Mr. Redwood
  Manhole covers are not separately identified within the United Kingdom customs tariff but fall within a general category "cast articles of non-malleable cast-iron for sewage, water, etc, systems" which also covers a number of other items such as cast iron pipes. A breakdown of the detailed products within the category would involve disproportionate costs.

  Imports from India for the category as a whole were 6,149 metric tonnes in 1989.

  United Kingdom production data for manhole covers are also not separately available from official statistics, but the industry has estimated that current production amounts to about 80,000 tonnes per annum. No information is available on the proportion of manhole covers that were defective.

  Brewing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will request a report from the Director General of Fair Trading on the implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on brewing.

  Mr. Redwood
  When announcing decisions on the MMC report, we made it clear that the Director General of Fair Trading—DGFT—will be assessing the effectiveness of the measures once the Supply of Beer Orders have had time to take full effect. Under the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order, brewers have until 1 November 1992 to complete the process of releasing premises from ties, although certain measures took effect on 1 May 1990. The DGFT is ready to receive any complaints or evidence of anti-competitive practices. If he thinks at any stage that further steps are necessary I will consider what action is appropriate following advice from him. In the meantime the Department and the Office of Fair Trading are maintaining cose contact on developments.

  Structural Adjustments Initiative
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact the agreement between Japan and the United States of America at the structural adjustments initiative talks will have upon the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  Both Japan and the United States have made it clear that any trade benefits which result from the structural impediments initiative will be available multilaterally. The United Kingdom attaches particular importance to the continued movement from exports led to domestic demand-led growth in Japan and to the development of an environment within Japan which enables foreign companies more easily to acquire and develop businesses there.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals exist to harmonise the Securities and Investments Board and its Group of Seven equivalents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. For legal and historical reasons, national regulatory regimes are very diverse. However, globalisation of financial markets is leading to a growing international awareness of the importance of increased co-operation between national regulators and enforcement agencies and of the need for mechanisms to ensure
  137
  that regulatory disparities do not hinder growth of cross-border trade. The Government, through the participation in the work of the International Organisation of Securities Commission and through direct contacts with other countries' governments and regulators, are seeking opportunities for moves towards arrangements for the mutual recognition of comparable regulatory regimes. The European Community is following a similar approach in the proposed investment services directive which will create the single European market in investment services.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the Group of Seven organisations and the powers which are comparable to the five United Kingdom self-regulatory organisations responsible to the Securities and Investments Boards.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have extensive information on the regimes and powers of the securities regulatory authorities of the Group of Seven countries both through regular, frequent bilateral contact between my Department and these authorities and through the valuable work of international organisations such as IOSCO—the International Organisation for Securities Commissions.

  Calder Valley Trade and Industry Exhibition
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to Calder Valley trade and industry to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 16 July until 20 July.

  Textile Mill Closures
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many mill closures have been reported in the textile and clothing industry in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Industry sources indicate that there were 45 mill closures in the 12 months to May 1990.

  Regional Policies
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce new regional policies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to introduce new regional policies. The Government remain committed to an effective regional policy and will continue to make the necessary resources available.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the investigations currently being conducted by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not practicable to do so. The Director General of Fair Trading's Office conducts a138
  considerable number of inquiries under the competition, consumer, companies and financial services legislation for which he is responsible. It is in the nature of such inquiries that much of this work must be carried out on a confidential basis.

  Arms Conversion
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to set up an arms conversion agency.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have nothing to add to the replies I have given to the hon. Member's earlier questions on this subject.

  Financial Services
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with whom the duty lies to vet financial products which are on offer as to whether they constitute investments under the terms of the Financial Services Act or the Banking Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is the responsibility of the person proposing to offer a financial product to assess whether that product falls within the scope of either the Financial Services Act or the Banking Act, or both, and to obtain any necessary authorisations before offering it. In the case of the Financial Services Act, the primary responsibility for investigating and, if appropriate, taking action against those offering a financial product without the requisite authorisation lies with the Securities and Investments Board. In respect of the Banking Act, the responsibility lies with the Bank of England.

  Companies Act 1989
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further plans he has to implement the provisions of the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  I signed an order yesterday which commences certain provisions of the Act. Section 130—company seals—section 138—directors' loans—and section 211(2) and (3)—building societies—will commence on 31 July 1990. Section 129—membership of holding company—section 144—definition of subsidiary—and section 207—order-making power for transfer of securities —will come into force on 1 November 1990. The order provides for certain transitional and saving provisions for sections 138, 144 and 211(2) and (3). I have placed a copy of the order in the Library.

  Import and Export Licences
  Mr. O?Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences he has granted under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  [ holding answer 2 July 1990]: Under the powers conferred upon him by the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has granted import and export licences as follows:

  Number

  Import licences

  1985

  144,951

  1986

  186,869

  139

  Number

  1987

  191,532

  1988

  214,522

  1989

  200,746

  19901

  79,693

  Export licences

  1987

  97,809

  1988

  89,800

  1989

  72,527

  19902

  20,969

  1 To end of June.

  2 To end of May.

  Complete figures for import arid export licences issued prior to these dates are not readily available, and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  From time to time my Department also issues open general licences for importers and exporters, which preclude the need to obtain individual licences for certain goods.

  Import Restrictions
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there are any restrictions on the import of turpentine and oil of camphor.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: There are no quantitative restrictions on imports to the United Kingdom of turpentine or oil of camphor. Under the common customs tariff of the Communities, import duties ranging from 3.2 to 7.1 per cent. would be payable on these products although in the case of certain types of turpentine duties have been partially or totally suspended.

  ECGD Insurance Service Group
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the full analysis of the costs of operating the insurance service group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 5 July 1990]: ECGD's published annual trading accounts include an analysis of the costs of operating ECGD as a whole but do not separately identify the costs of operating the insurance services group. Appropriate information will be made available to potential investors when final decisions have been taken about the proposed method of sale of the insurance services group.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what indemnification was provided against litigation arising out of the loss of MV Derbyshire; when the indemnity was agreed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [ holding answer 6 July 1990]: Under the terms of an indemnity given at the time of the privatisation of Swan Hunter Shipbuilders in January 1986, British Shipbuilders assumed responsibility for all claims made against Swan Hunter in relation to all vessels delivered prior to the sale of the yard. I do not intend to make a statement at this time.

  Uruguay Round
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the meetings of the Uruguay round at which the United Kingdom has been represented and the names of the United Kingdom representatives on each occasion.

  Mr. Redwood
  The United Kingdom participates in the GATT Uruguay round as a member of the European Community, and is represented at meetings by the European Commission. United Kingdom officials also attend all formal meetings as observers.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the United Kingdom's policy in respect of eliminating farming subsidies via the Uruguay round; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  All parties to the GATT round negotiation have agreed the long-term objective. It is to provide
  "substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection sustained over an agreed period of time, resulting in correcting and preventing restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets".
  The United Kingdom attaches great importance to the success of the round as a whole, of which agriculture is a key element; and we are working hard with our EC partners and others to achieve this.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. and Mrs. Konin
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Russians about their failure to grant an exit visa to Mr. and Mrs. Leo Konin of Moscow.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We can certainly raise the case of Mr. and Mrs. Leo Konin with the Soviet authorities, but in order to make our representations most effective we shall need further details.

  Democratic People's Republic of Korea
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to(a) encourage educational, economic, social and cultural links with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (b) enable the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to open a mission in the United Kingdom and (c) end the international isolation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We do not recognise North Korea as a state and consequently have no official dealings with any authorities in North Korea. But we impose no restrictions on educational, trade and other informal links. We welcome the resumption of contacts between South and North Korea on 3 July.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he envisages any role for Her Majesty's Government in the election process in El Salvador later this year.
  141
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The nature of the arrangements for the elections due in El Salvador in March 1991 is under discussion in talks between the Government of El Salvador and representatives of the FMLN. It should become clearer, in the light of the outcome of these talks, what role the international community might play.

  Malawi
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reply he has sent to the letter to him from the Rev. John Harvey about Mr. Orton Chirwa and Mrs. Vera Chirwa, held incommunicado in a Malawi prison.

  Received

  Withdrawn

  Granted

  Refused

  (i) India 1989

  3

  1

  0

  2

  January to June 1990

  1

  0

  0

  1

  (ii) Bangladesh

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  (iii) Australia 1989

  9,504

  147

  9,349

  8

  January to June 1990

  7,293

  124

  7,166

  3

  (iv) Canada 1989

  1,904

  17

  1,886

  1

  January to June 1990

  1,202

  12

  1,182

  2

  1 Accurate figures are not available: the numbers are believed to be minimal.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what details are made available by consulate staff to United Kingdom citizens seeking legal aid in foreign countries;

  (2) approximately how many United Kingdom citizens visiting United Kingdom consulates in foreign countries have been advised on the availability of legal aid.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Consular officers can advise British nationals who inquire whether legal aid is available and how to apply. No record is kept of the number of such inquiries received.

  Contras (Demobilisation)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the demobilisation of the Contras; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Demobilisation of the Contras was completed on 29 June, by which time 19,369 men had been demobilised in Nicaragua. A further 2,607 have been demobilised in Honduras. Some 17,000 weapons have been collected and destroyed. The prospects for peace and stability in Nicaragua have been greatly enhanced by this successful operation, and I congratulate all concerned with it, in particular the United Nations force responsible—ONUCA.

  Voting Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his reply of 29 June,Official Report, column 384, if he will list in one table and in descending order the percentage of the population entitled to vote who voted for the main governing party in each NATO and Warsaw pact country.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]:
  142
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I will be sending the hon. Member a copy of my reply.

  Immigration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance as woking holidaymakers have been(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused in (i) India, (ii) Bangladesh, (iii) Australia and (iv) Canada, during 1989 and 1990 to the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is as follows:

  Per cent.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NATO)

  Federal Republic of Germany (1987)

  CDU/CSU

  37.00

  Portugal (1987)

  Social Democrats

  35.94

  Greece (1990)

  New Democracy party

  35.90

  Turkey (1987)

  Motherland Party (ANAP)

  33.30

  Canada (1988)

  Progressive Conservative Party

  32.25

  United Kingdom (1987)

  Conservative Party

  31.50

  Italy (1987)

  Christian Democrats

  29.00

  Netherlands (1989)

  Christian Democratic Alliance

  28.26

  (Labour Party

  25.50

  Spain (1989)

  Socialist Party

  27.45

  United States (1988)

  President Bush as Republican presidential candidate

  26.80

  Belgium (1987)

  Socialist Party

  26.60

  Christian Democrats)

  23.90

  France (1988)

  Socialist Party

  24.15

  Norway (1989)

  Conservative Party

  18.30

  Iceland (1987)

  Progressive Party

  16.80

  143

  Per cent.

  Denmark (1988)

  Conservative People's Party

  16.50

  Luxembourg1

  WARSAW PACT

  Romania

  National Salvation Front

  54.00

  Czechoslovakia

  Czech governing party—Civic Forum

  49.00

  Slovak governing party—Public Against Violence

  32.00

  Bulgaria

  Bulgarian Socialist Party

  41.00

  Poland

  Solidarity (Senate elections)

  39.00

  German Democratic Republic

  Christian Democratic Union

  38.00

  Hungary

  Democratic Forum (first round)

  15.00

  1 No comparable figure for Luxembourg is available, since each voter may cast several votes.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Guillotine Motions
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the occasions on which the Government have introduced an allocation of time order in the sessions (a) 1988–89 and (b) 1989–90.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Government have introduced the following allocation of time orders since the beginning of the 1988–89 Session:

  1988–89

  23 January 1989

  Prevention of Terrorism Bill

  6 February 1989

  Water Bill

  13 February 1989

  Official Secrets Bill

  3 May 1989

  Self-Governing Schools etc (Scotland) Bill

  8 May 1989

  Dock Work Bill

  17 July 1989

  Football Spectators Bill [Lords]

  26 October 1989

  Companies Bill [Lords] and Children Bill [Lords]

  8 November 1989

  Local Government and Housing Bill and Employment Bill

  1989–90

  14 March 1990

  National Health Service and Community Care Bill

  28 March 1990

  Social Security Bill

  2 April 1990

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

  4 April 1990

  Education (Student Loans) Bill

EMPLOYMENT

  Written Answers
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make it his policy that, henceforth, written answers from his Department will be published as before.
  144
  Mr. Eggar
  Recent changes to the way that written parliamentary questions are answered by Ministers in this Department have been in the context of the establishment of the Employment Service as an executive agency and of training and enterprise councils. The arrangements for responding to inquiries from hon. Members were described in the booklets that were sent in April to right hon. and hon. Members entitled "The Employment Service: The Handling of MP's Inquiries and Parliamentary Questions" and "Guidelines on the handling of representations by members of parliament about the activities of Training and Enterprise Councils". I refer the hon. Lady to the answer on 21 May,Official Report, columns 145–52.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people registered unemployed fortnightly and quarterly, at the part-time benefit signing office in Ferryhill, County Durham, during its last month of operation;

  (2) what arrangements will be made to cover the transport costs of claimants affected by the closure of the part-time benefit signing office in Ferryhill, County Durham;

  (3) what are the latest figures for the number of people who register unemployed, by individual office and by region, on a fortnightly and quarterly basis, at the part-time unemployment benefit offices now in operation;

  (4) how many people registered unemployed fortnightly and quarterly at the part-time unemployment offices closed between April 1985 and April 1990, for each office and by region;

  (5) what was the estimated annual savings incurred by the closure of part-time unemployment benefit offices between April 1985 and April 1990, for each office and by region.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

  Women
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of women work In the United Kingdom; and what are the comparable figures in European countries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest comparable figures are given in the table. At that time 57 per cent. of women of working age—14-64—in the United Kingdom were in employment; only Denmark had a higher percentage.

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  57

  Belgium

  38

  Denmark

  70

  Germany

  49

  Greece

  36

  Spain

  27

  France

  49

  Ireland

  32

  Italy

  35

  Luxembourg

  40

  Holland

  43

  Portugal

  50

  Source: Eurostat labour force survey, spring 1988.
  145
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of self-employed people are women; and what was the percentage in 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In December 1989, the latest date for which estimates are available, self-employed women represented 24 per cent. of the total self-employed in the United Kingdom, compared with 19 per cent. in June 1979.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what restrictions exist on the length of time an employee may work before he or she is legally entitled to rest.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In general, these are matters for agreement between employers and their employees or their representatives, but all employers have a general duty under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees. This means they cannot normally require people to work excessive hours or unsuitable shift patterns likely to lead to ill health or accidents caused by fatigue. Work schedules should also allow for adequate rest periods. There are also particular restrictions on the periods that may be worked without a rest by heavy vehicle drivers, aircrews and workers covered by the Shops Act 1950.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which bodies are being consulted on his consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities".

  Mr. Eggar
  I look forward to receiving comments from all interested parties on the consultative document. Copies have been sent to a wide range of organisations and individuals; including the all-party disablement group, the Select Committee on Employment, the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People, committees for the employment of disabled people, organisations of and for people with disabilities, providers of employment and training opportunities for people with disabilities, the CBI, the TUC, local authorities and professional bodies with an interest in the employment and training of people with disabilities. Copies of the document are available to anyone who wishes to comment.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many parliamentary questions, since 1 April he has answered and, of that number, how many he(a) arranged a reply from the Employment Service agency's chief executive direct to the hon. Member concerned, (b) offered to write direct to the hon. Member himself, (c) referred the hon. Member to a document in the Library and (d) declined to answer because of disproportionate cost; and what were the comparable figures for the same period in 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested in the period between 1 April and 6 July is set out in the table.
  146

  1989

  1990

  Questions answered

  1,041

  958

  (a) reply from the Employment Service chief executive

  1n/a

  57

  (b) wrote direct to the hon. Member

  9

  2

  (c) referred hon. Member to a document in the Library

  10

  7

  (d) declined to answer because of disproportionate cost

  20

  28

  1 The Employment Service did not become an executive agency until 2 April 1990.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when individual local education authorities were provided with their allocated budget for TVEI extension for 1991–92; and if he will publish them.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Education authorities have not yet been given their budgets for TVEI extension for 1991–92.

WALES

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount paid to farmers under the environmentally sensitive area scheme in each of the designated areas in the year to 31 March; how much was reimbursed by the European Economic Community; and when he expects to be able to assess any savings made under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Participants in the ESA schemes in the Cambrian mountains and the Lleyn peninsula received £478,000 and £228,000 respectively in 1989–90. The payments attract 25 per cent. reimbursement from EC Funds—FEOGA. The economic studies which will provide information on any change in support costs under the CAP are not yet complete.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the emoluments of(a) chairmen and women, (b) vice-chairmen and women, (c) board members and (d) chief executives of non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The emoluments of(a) chairmen and women, (b) vice-chairmen and women and (c) board members are shown in "Public Bodies 1989", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The emoluments of chief executives (or equivalents) of the executive non-departmental public bodies in Wales are as follows:

  £

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  n/a

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  46,745

  Curriculum Council for Wales

  1—

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  43,350

  Housing for Wales

  43,350

  Land Authority for Wales

  43,350

  National Library of Wales

  2—

  National Museum of Wales

  2—

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales

  1—

  147

  £

  Sports Council for Wales

  1—

  Wales Tourist Board

  43,350

  Welsh Development Agency

  57,990

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  3—

  1 Equivalent to grade 5 on Civil Service Scale (a) of 30,001 to 33,991.

  2 Equivalent to grade 4 on Civil Service scale (b) of 36,818 to 28,254.

  3 A and C scale D range 31,057 to 35,351.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those chairmen and women of non-departmental public bodies in Wales who are at the same time vice-chairmen or women of other such bodies in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Mr. J. D. Allen CBE is chairman of Housing for Wales and deputy chairman of the Land Authority for Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he next expects to convene a meeting with the chairmen and women of the non-departmental public bodies in Wales;

  (2) when he next expects to convene a meeting of the non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I meet the chairmen of the executive non-departmental public bodies for which I am responsible individually as and when necessary and not collectively.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to exclude chairmen and women and vice-chairmen and women of one non-departmental public body in Wales from being chosen as chairmen or women or vice-chairmen or women of any other such bodies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many are on waiting lists for accommodation in each district authority area in Wales; and what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the average percentage rise in house prices, by district authority area in Wales, annually in the last 10 years and (b) the current average house price in each district authority.

  Mr. Grist
  Average house prices are available only for Wales as a whole and relate to building society borrowers only. The average selling price of dwellings in Wales in the first quarter of 1990 was £44,324. The annual percentage rises in average price are given in the table1.

  Percentage increase in average house price over previous year

  Percentage

  1980

  13.5

  1981

  4.1

  1982

  -2.4

  1983

  14.6

  148

  Percentage

  1984

  5.0

  1985

  5.7

  1986

  9.4

  1987

  8.6

  1988

  15.3

  1989

  25.5

  1 Source: Department of Environment-Building Societies Association, sample survey of mortgages.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to improve the financial basis of Gwynedd area health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 4 July 1990, at columns 578–79.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit(a) Clwyd, (b) Gwent, (c) Mid-Glamorgan, (d) West Glamorgan, (e) Powys, (f) Gwynedd, (g) South Glamorgan, (h) Dyfed and (i) South Pembrokeshire area health authorities to discuss problems associated with underfunding.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend hopes to visit each of the district health authorities in Wales over the coming months and will expect to hear, at first hand, how the authorities are managing the record levels of resource provision in real terms which have been made available to them under this Government.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will institute a reassessment of the funding of health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Health authorities in Wales have received a revenue cash increase averaging 7.8 per cent. over last year —1989–90. This increase together with the resources which authorities are expected to unlock by cash improvement programmes and income generation schemes totalling a further 1.3 per cent. should be sufficient to meet anticipated inflation and provide for further service developments. Provision for the next year will be considered in the course of this year's public expenditure survey. However the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 requires changes in the way health services are to be provided and funded in future. This has necessitated a review of the resource allocation methodology to enable health authorities to be funded as procurers of services rather than, as at present, as providers of services. At the same time the method of allocating capital is being reviewed to take account of the new arrangements. Consultation on the proposals for change will take place over the next six months. The new arrangements will be phased in from next year for revenue and from 1992–93 for capital.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health authorities he has visited in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend has not visited any health authorities in Wales to date, but hopes to visit all of them over the coming months. He is today meeting health authority and FPC chairmen.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local education authorities he has met in Wales since his appointment as Secretary of State.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To date I have met a number of chairmen in the course of my visits to schools and my regular meetings with the Wales Advisory Board for Local Authority Higher Education.

  Teacher Unions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which teacher unions he has met since becoming Secretary of State.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have not met with the teacher unions since May. However a meeting has been arranged with representatives of the NAS-UWT (Wales) on 7 September.

  Reading
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken since 1979, and what initiatives he intends to take, to improve reading ability in the schools of Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1979 the Department has supported a number of surveys and research into reading ability. Since 1983 all reports by Her Majesty's Inspectorate have been published which include, for individual schools, an assessment of reading. One of the aims of the national curriculum is to improve reading standards. The programmes of study for both English and Welsh will lead to attainment targets in reading.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales from which bodies he receives advice on the teaching of reading in the schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Our main source of advice is Her Majesty's Inspectorate but we also receive reports on reading from research projects specifically funded by the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how prevalent in schools in Wales is the look-say technique of the teaching of reading; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The look and say technique is used in many schools but most infants' teachers are eclectic in their teaching of reading and use the approach which best meets the individual child's needs. It is unusual to find schools exclusively committed to one method of teaching children to read.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to assess the level of reading ability in schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Assessment is an integral part of the national curriculum and the progamme of study for both Welsh and English will lead to an assessment of a pupil's reading ability. Additionally, HM inspectorate will continue to monitor and assess pupils' attainments in reading throughout primary schooling as part of their normal inspection programme.
  150
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the standard of reading ability in(a) infant schools and (b) primary schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In recent years, about 40 Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on individual schools have been published annually and there have also been a number of schools sampled in surveys.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what means he has measured reading ability in the schools of Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my replies to him early today.

  Parent Teacher Associations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the Parent Teachers Association Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no present plans to do so.

  HM Inspectorate of Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met Her Majesty's inspectorate in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  HM inspectorate is part of the Welsh Office and my right hon. Friend meets and is advised by officials as and when required.

  Earnings
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish average gross weekly earnings for(a) full-time adult men, (b) full-time adult women and (c) all adults in Powys for (i) 1987, (ii) 1988 and (iii) 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The average gross weekly earnings of full-time males in Powys in 1988 was £191.20. No separate data is available for males and females in the other years requested due to the small sample sizes for Powys used in the new earnings survey. The average gross weekly earnings of all adults in full-time employment in Powys in 1988 and 1989 were £182.20 and £206.20 respectively: figures for 1987 are not available.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish average taxable weekly earnings for full-time adult(a) women and (b) men in Powys for (1) 1987, (2) 1988 and (3) 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Estimates of taxable income at county level are not presently available.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish average(a) gross weekly earnings for full-time adult men working in manual occupations and (b) disposable weekly earnings for adult men, in Powys for (1) 1987, (2) 1988 and (3) 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Reliable estimates or average gross weekly earnings for full-time adult men working in manual occupations in Powys are not available from the new earnings survey.
  151
  In 1988 the average disposable weekly earnings for adult men in full-time employment in Powys was £160.50, calculated on the basis set out in table 48 of "Welsh Economic Trends", No. 11, 1987. There are no reliable figures available using this definition for 1987 or 1989. Estimates for all full-time men are not available.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the reasons for the decrease between 1980 and 1988 in the frequency of sampling carried out to determine the quality of potable water in Wales as shown in table 2.04 of the environmental digest for Wales No. 4 1988–89.

  Mr. Grist
  This was a matter for the respective water authorities. The Water Supply (Water Quality)

  United Kingdom statistics

  All figures in 1,000's tonnes

  Year

  Paper and board1

  Waste paper and board

  Apparent United Kingdom consumption paper and board

  Apparent United Kingdom waste collected2

  Apparent percentage of

  Proportion of waste used

  United Kingdom production

  Imports

  Exports

  United Kingdom mill use

  Imports

  Exports

  consumption collected as waste paper

  in United Kingdom production3 Percentage

  1983

  3,298

  4,285

  424

  1,827

  27

  193

  7,159

  1,993

  27.8

  55.4

  1984

  3,591

  4,528

  533

  2,003

  85

  256

  7,586

  2,174

  28.7

  55.8

  1985

  3,681

  4,604

  574

  2,067

  92

  196

  7,711

  2,171

  28.2

  56.2

  1986

  3,941

  4,757

  630

  2,147

  40

  248

  8,068

  2,355

  29.2

  54.5

  1987

  4,183

  5,283

  732

  2,310

  55

  348

  8,734

  2,603

  29.8

  55.2

  1988

  4,295

  5,788

  797

  2,414

  60

  423

  9,285

  2,777

  29.9

  56.2

  1989

  4,476

  6,010

  905

  2,578

  80

  479

  9,581

  2,977

  31.1

  57.6

  1 Excluding building board.

  2 Ignores changes in stocks.

  3 Ignores the yield factor (wastage during reprocessing).

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the causes of the reduction in sampling of non-EC identified beaches in South Glamorgan as set out in table 2.11 of the environmental digest for Wales No. 4 1988–89.

  Mr. Grist
  This was a matter for the Welsh water authority and is now a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  Inflation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of inflation in those costs falling on(a) district councils and (b) county councils in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 9 July 1990, at column 59.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of inflation in the current financial year in respect of costs falling on the national health service in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I have made no such estimate. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's answer of 9 July 1990. Health authorities are advised each year by the Welsh Office of the general inflation forecast made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement. It is for individual health authorities to assess the impact of pay and price changes on their own programmes, and to budget accordingly.
  152
  Regulations prescribe the sampling regime now to be followed by water companies to monitor the quality of water supplied for domestic purposes.

  Paper Recycling
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what quantity of paper was reclaimed in Wales in total for each of the years from 1983 to 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on waste paper reclamation is not collected centrally. The British Waste Paper Association produces the following statistics, on a United Kingdom basis only. Waste paper collection is not measured directly, but as a function of United Kingdom mill use, imports and exports.

  No figures for cost inflation falling on health authorities in Wales are produced by the Welsh Office.

  National Health Service Reform
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether there are any documents, publications or advice notes in relation to(a) reforms of the national health service and (b) community care which arise from work commissioned or assisted by his Department which are not contained in the list referred to in his answer of 29 June, Official Report, column 298.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The updated list will be comprehensive.

  Welsh Health Planning Forum
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce his response to the Welsh health planning forum's proposals for a strategic intent and direction for the national health service in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Following widespread commendation of the planning forum's proposed strategic intent and direction for the National Health Service in Wales, I was pleased to inform district health authority and family practitioner committee chairmen today of my endorsement of the planning forum's ideas.

  I am anxious to maintain the momentum generated by the forum and have asked the chairmen to develop by 31 December 1991 local strategies for health covering the

  153
  period to the year 2002, and to submit these to me for endorsement, after full consultation with local interests, including users.

  Copies of my statement to the chairmen have been placed in the Library.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list any new responsibilities which will be exercised by district health authorities in Wales in addition to those previously exercised(a) prior to the passing of the national health service and Community Care Act and (b) prior to the full implementation of the Government's plan for reform of the national health service.

  Mr. Grist
  Under our programme of reforms, DHAs will be responsible for securing quality health services for their resident populations, rather than, as before, providing a service within a given geographical area.

  In addition, when the relevant provisions of the Act come into force, authorities will be responsible for determining the extent to which accommodation and services are made available for private patients.

ENERGY

  Waste Reprocessing
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how often British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has exercised its option to return wastes under their contracts for reprocessing spent fuels from overseas utilities in Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland; and if he will itemise such returns since 1976 to date.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1976, the overseas reprocessing contracts of British Nuclear Fuels plc have contained options for the return of wastes arising. The Government intend that such options should be exercised and that wastes should be returned. Before such wastes can be returned they have to be put into a form in which they can be safely transported and stored. I understand that the vitrification plant for treating high-level waste will be operational later this year and that the encapsulation plant for intermediate-level waste should be operational by 1992, when the thermal oxide reprocessing plant begins commercial reprocessing.

  JET Project, Culham
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement concerning the recent release of CFC-113 into the atmosphere at the JET project at Culham.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what steps he is taking to ensure further accidents do not take place at Culham;

  (2) if he will order a comprehensive check on safety procedures at Culham, following the emission of 2 tonnes of Freon-113 at the JET project;

  (3) why a public announcement on the emission of Freon-113 at Culham was not made immediately.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the JET joint undertaking of Euratom recently switched from water to 154
  Freon 113 for cooling the magnetic field coils in their fusion experiment because it is non-toxic, non-flammable and does not produce short-circuits on electrical equipment. In commissioning the new system on 4 June a pipe came loose and 1m3 of the liquid was released in the torus hall, some of which was recovered. The incident was reported to HM principal inspector of factories at Oxford as required by the regulations for the reporting of occupational occurrences. JET aim to work to the highest standards and are taking precautions to avoid any recurrence.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) whether he will place in the Library a copy of the letter on the risks attached to privatising nuclear power generation sent by Kleinwort Benson to his Department in August 1988;

  (2) what advice his Department received in August 1988 from Kleinwort Benson concerning the sale of nuclear power stations and financial guarantees.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have nothing to add to the very full evidence, both written and oral, given by my Department and Klienwort Benson to the Select Committee on Energy.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library copies of the 11 papers listed in the Energy Committee report, "The Cost of Nuclear Power," volume II, page 27, sent by his Department to the Committee.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. The papers are confidential.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made an assessment of the possible economies in respect of the storage of advanced gas-cooled reactor fuel in dry conditions, as referred to in the Energy Committee report, "The Cost of Nuclear Power", Volume II, page 77; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Disposal of spent fuel is a matter for the owners who will take into account safety, economic and technical considerations. The possible economies referred to by the hon. Member were mentioned in evidence submitted by the South of Scotland electricity board.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the average price per unit of electricity from the advanced gas-cooled reactor stations in England and Wales in April 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  The price of electricity for the nuclear power stations is determined by Nuclear Electric's contracts with the public electricity suppliers. The terms of these contracts are a commercial matter for Nuclear Electric plc.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what initiatives he intends to introduce to increase the use of low energy electric light bulbs(a) in his Department (b) in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In the case of the Department of Energy headquarters, 1 Palace street, I have ensured that the developer installed low-energy light bulbs wherever it
  155
  was economic to do so. In the wider context of the United Kingdom, I have received a consultant's report on the efficiency of domestic electrical appliances, including lights; the report is now being prepared for publication.

  I am now considering the report with a view to deciding how best the increased use of low energy light bulbs can be encouraged. I have also had discussions with the manufacturers of the bulbs.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish the report on the energy efficiency of electrical appliances commissioned by his Department in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I expect to publish the report before the autumn.

  Non-fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on what calculations and information he bases his statement that the non-fossil fuel levy will decrease between now and 1998.

  Mr. Baldry
  The rate of the levy depends predominantly on the difference between the market price for electricity and the cost of electricity under the terms of the nuclear contracts which contain incentives for Nuclear Electric to improve efficiency. This difference is expected to get smaller over the period of the contracts. The rate of the fossil fuel levy is therefore expected to decline significantly during the eight-year period of the nuclear contracts.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Department of Education Staff
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to relocate staff from the offices of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland at Rathgael to Londonderry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  It is intended that the teachers' administration and superannuation branches of the Department of Education, involving some 95 posts, will move from Rathgael to Londonderry. The extent to which staff will transfer with the posts has not yet been determined.

  Terrorism
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were killed or injured, for each year since 1969, as a result of a terrorist incident.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Royal Ulster Constabulary deaths

  Royal Ulster Constabulary injuries

  1969

  1

  711

  1970

  2

  191

  1971

  11

  315

  1972

  17

  485

  1973

  13

  291

  1974

  15

  235

  1975

  11

  263

  1976

  23

  303

  1977

  14

  183

  156

  Year

  Royal Ulster Constabulary deaths

  Royal Ulster Constabulary injuries

  1978

  10

  302

  1979

  14

  165

  1980

  9

  194

  1981

  21

  332

  1982

  12

  99

  1983

  18

  142

  1984

  9

  267

  1985

  23

  415

  1986

  12

  622

  1987

  16

  246

  1988

  6

  218

  1989

  9

  163

  1990

  14

  296

  1 To date.

  2 As at 30 April.

  Inner City Trust, Londonderry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any public investigations are under way into the allegations made about the inner city trust, Londonderry in a recent "Spotlight" programme.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: There are no investigations under way in regard to any allegations made in the programme.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will request the Fair Employment Commission to carry out an investigation into the Londonderry inner city trust.

  Mr. Needham
  The Fair Employment Commission is a statutory body which is entirely independent of Government. As such, the commission determines its own investigation policy without any participation by the Government.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table to show for each year since it was set up the sums paid to the North West Centre for Learning and Development; which body or bodies provided such monies and the amounts; for what purposes they were provided and used; and if the Fair Employment Agency or its successor has carried out or is considering carrying out any investigation into this body.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: The Department of Economic Development under the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme paid the following sums of money to the North West Centre for Learning and Development for the purpose of providing temporary employment for long-term unemployed adults. The work carried out by the centre, under the ACE programme, includes environmental work, community development activity and research associated with a genealogical centre.

  Financial year

  ACE financial assistance (£)

  1983–84

  49,888

  1984–85

  65,596

  1985–86

  202,161

  157

  Financial year

  ACE financial assistance (£)

  1986–87

  1,036,182

  1987–88

  984,974

  1988–89

  812,698

  1989–90

  690,429

  The North West Centre for Learning and Development has not been investigated by the Fair Employment Agency or its successor body the Fair Employment Commission. As an independent body the Fair Employment Commission determines its own investigation policy and the Department plays no part in this.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many trainees have been taken on by the Inner City Trust, Londonderry since its inception; and how many of these were (a) Protestants, (b) Roman Catholics and (c) others in each year and in total, or as much of such information as is currently available to him.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: The Inner City Trust does not have any trainees. However, since August 1988 it has sponsored an ACE project providing temporary employment places as follows:—

  Year

  Average number of places

  1988

  131

  1989

  131

  1990

  135

  The religious affiliations of the employees are not known.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show, from its inception, the sums paid from public funds and by whom to the Inner City Trust, Londonderry, the purposes for which those sums were given and used, or as much of such information as is currently available to him.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Source of assistance/ Financial year

  DOE (NI) £

  DED £

  LEDU £

  ERDF £

  ESF £

  1983–84

  3,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  50,00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  53,050

  —

  —

  327,689

  85,786

  1988–89

  12,500

  233,437

  —

  327,689

  40,147

  1989–90

  82,500

  596,453

  44,100

  —

  —

  Totals

  201,550

  829,890

  44,100

  655,378

  125,933

  Department of the Environment (DOE(NI))

  Funds paid towards regeneration work under the Urban Development Grant and the Social Need Order.

  Department of Economic Development (DED)

  These funds have been paid under the Action for
  158
  Community Employment (ACE) programme for the purpose of providing temporary employment for long-term unemployed adults. The work carried out by the Trust under the ACE programme commenced in 1988 and is related to the redevelopment of a large area of the city including the building of a craft village, heritage library and offices for local community groups.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU)

  Funds paid towards the construction of a craft village as part of LEDU's contribution to the Making Londonderry Work Initiative.

  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

  Funds paid in respect of the creation of a craft village within Londonderry City walls.

  European Social Funds (ESF)

  Funds paid in respect of vocational training provided.

  Foyle Co-op
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums have been paid from public funds to the Foyle Co-op; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: A review of available records reveals that no moneys have been paid to the Foyle Co-op from public funds.

HEALTH

  Data Systems
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list, for each regional health authority, the number of(a) coding clerks, (b) data entry clerks, (c) other medical records staff, (d) information staff, (e) computer programmers and systems analysts, (f) statisticians, (g) operations research staff and (h) health economists employed by the hospital and community health services;

  (2) if he will list, for each family practitioner committee in England and Wales, the total number of (a) coding clerks, (b) data entry clerks, (c) other medical records staff, (d) information staff, (e) computer programmers, (e) statisticians and systems analysts, (g) operations research staff and (h) health economists employed in the family practitioner services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The precise information requested is not available centrally. The numbers of NHS administrative and clerical staff shown as working in computing, medical records, statistics and information, and operational research in each regional health authority at September 1988 are given in the table. These figures will include the staff detailed in the question with the exception of health economists; those for computing staff include additional categories. 1988 is the latest date for which information to this level of detail is available.

  Similar information for each family practitioner committee is not collected centrally. Comparisons between regions need to be interpreted with caution. Health authorities will have regard to a number of different factors in setting staffing levels, including the size of the area, population, throughput of patients and current and future levels of service provision.
  159

  NHS administrative and clerical staff in post by regional health authorities at 30 September 1988 Whole-time equivalents1

  Region

  Computing

  Medical Records

  Statistics and information

  Operational Research

  Northern

  108

  853

  38

  3

  Yorkshire

  110

  1,109

  66

  3

  Trent

  99

  1,552

  62

  13

  East Anglian

  66

  575

  32

  5

  North West Thames

  80

  981

  52

  2

  North East Thames

  138

  1,243

  61

  17

  South East Thames

  136

  1,075

  73

  4

  South West Thames

  90

  914

  43

  —

  Wessex

  71

  1,098

  74

  2

  Oxford

  96

  674

  68

  2

  South Western

  154

  842

  74

  3

  West Midlands

  230

  1,628

  147

  12

  Mersey

  79

  949

  47

  7

  North western

  163

  1,635

  67

  1

  England Total

  2,119

  15,451

  955

  75

  Source:

  Department of Health (SM13) annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest one whole-time equivalent.

  Note:

  Includes staff at the Dental Estimate Board, Prescription Pricing Authority, London Post-Graduate Special Health Authorities, Family Practitioner Committees and other Statutory Authorities (eg Public Health Laboratory service and the Health Education Authority).

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of beds in use in national health service hospitals in January and February; and what was the average number of medical nursing and auxiliary staff employed to care for the patients using them.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Data is not available yet for January and February. The latest centrally-available figures are as follows:

  Beds

  Average daily available beds in NHS hospitals in England during April 1988–March 1989

  282,937

  Source: KH03

  NHS hospital staff at 30 September 1988

  Whole time equivalent1

  Medical and dental (includes locums)2

  40,600

  Nursing and midwifery staff3

  344,800

  Auxiliary staff4

  79,800

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred whole-time equivalent.

  2 The figure is for all hospital medical and dental staff.

  3 Includes agency staff. Excludes nurses and midwives working in out-patients or accident and emergency departments.

  4 Defined as professional and technical staff.

  Note: For medical and dental, and professional and technical staff it is not possible to separate the services they provide to in-patients from those for others, eg, out-patients.

  Source: DH annual census of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  Smoking (Children)
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the MORI social research unit's report to the health education authority on smoking by children between the ages of nine and 15 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We welcome the report which was undertaken as part of the Health Education Authority and 160
  Department of Health's joint teenage smoking programme. It should prove valuable both in managing the programme and in planning its future direction. The report confirms the evidence that smoking among schoolchildren has fallen since 1984. However, the figures remain disturbingly high, and the aim of the teenage smoking programme, to which the Government have committed over £2 million a year, is to achieve further significant reductions.

  Cervical Cancer
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to reduce deaths from cervical cancer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cervical screening programme forms an important part of our strategy to promote women's health. The improvements that have been introduced over recent years—we were the first country in the EC to introduce nationwide computerised call and recall systems—should further increase the effectiveness of the programme. Five-yearly cervical screening can reduce deaths among women screened by approximately 80 per cent. By March 1993, we expect all women aged 20 to 64 years to have been brought into the scope of the programme and to have received their first invitation for a cervical smear.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects new salary and regrading arrangements to be made for speech therapists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Any changes arising from the forthcoming review of pay rates and the 1988 grade restructuring agreement will be effective from 1 October 1990.

  Maternity Services
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much increased spending on maternity services has taken place in the last 11 years.
  161
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Between 1977–78 and 1988–89 total expenditure on National Health Service maternity services—community and hospital—increased from £235 million to £736 million—an increase in real terms of 27.1 per cent.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the changes made to maternity services in the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There has been a concerted programme of action aimed at reducing maternal, perinatal and infant mortality, and developing a partnership between health service professionals and mothers and their families in the delivery of a more personal standard of maternity care. There has also been a major expansion in neonatal intensive care.

  As a result mortality rates have been reduced to the lowest levels so far achieved, it is general practice for a partner to remain with the mother during delivery and schemes are being introduced for early discharge from hospital into the care of a community midwife. Since 1980–81, real-term expenditure on the maternity services has increased by 16 per cent., the number of midwives by 17 per cent., and the number of nursing and midwifery staff employed in special and neonatal intensive care by 136 per cent.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide statutory protection to the new title of its profession adopted by the Society of Chiropodists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has not been notified by the Society of Chiropodists that it has adopted a new title for its profession.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage increase there has been in the total establishment of speech therapists since 1979; how many posts are currently filled and how many vacancies exist; and how many speech therapists have left the profession in the past 11 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the establishment and the number of speech therapists leaving the profession for the periods requested is not collected centrally. At 30 September 1979, there were 1,510 speech therapists in post; by 30 September 1989, this number had risen to 2,830, an increase of over 87 per cent. At 31 March 1989 there were 178 funded posts vacant for over three months.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the local authorities which use their discretionary powers to supplement health authority provision of speech therapy.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made to pay general practitioners under the new contract; and if he will make a statement.
  162
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All general practitioners were paid promptly at the end of the first quarter of 1990–91. Doctors in contract with 75 of the 90 family practitioner committees were paid in full at the end of June either by computer, manual methods or by a combination of the two. The remaining 15 family practitioner committees made an advance payment based on the previous quarter's earnings. All family practitioner committees used either the new quarterly payments software issued earlier this year or made local arrangements based on assessment of entitlement. Family practitioner committees have discretion to make advance payments, so there is no reason why any general practitioner should be in financial difficulties due to the new arrangements. Family practitioner committees are dealing promptly with any queries from general practitioners who believe they have been underpaid.

  Statements from the British Medical Association on this subject are seriously misleading. It is nonsense for the British Medical Association to claim that the Government forced through the changes without proper consultation with the profession. Detailed discussions with the British Medical Association's general medical services committee —GMSC—took place over a period of 18 months involving over 100 hours of discussion including meetings with Ministers. Every single detailed change to the general practitioners' terms of service and their statement of fees and allowances was sent to the general medical services committee for its comments and the general medical services committee was given every opportunity to respond.

  Midwives
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what salary is presently paid, and will be offered in the next pay round to(a) a senior nurse sixth grade and (b) clinical midwives on grade 1; and what are the reasons for the difference;

  (2) what factors account for the delay in making an offer of a new pay and grading structure for midwifery managers;

  (3) when he will make an offer of a new pay and grading structure for midwifery managers; and when he expects to reach agreement with the staff side.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government take decisions on pay levels for midwives in the light of recommendations from the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives and Health Visitors and the Professions Allied to Medicine. Pay structures are a matter for negotiation in the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council.

  The basic pay for a nurse or midwife on grade I from 1 April 1990 is £16,990 to £19,240—from 1 January 1991 £17,305 to £19,600. The existing senior nurse/midwife structure has been under review by the negotiating council, which reached agreement last month on a new structure, to come into effect from 1 January 1991. The review body is expected shortly to make recommendations on the pay of staff in the senior nurse 6 grade with effect from 1 April 1990, and on the pay levels to be attached to the new structure from 1 January 1991.

  Heart Valves
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place to co-ordinate warnings to(a) cardiac specialists, (b) district general hospitals, (c) general practitioners and (d) patients fitted with suspect valves in cases where a fault is identified in a specific make of valve.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Hospitals and manufacturers of such devices are required to report incidents involving defective or potentially defective devices to the Department's national defect reporting centre for investigation by appropriate technical experts. Where a risk to patients or staff is identified, appropriate advice is issued and other action taken if required. The basis of circulation of such advice is considered in each particular case, on its merits.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what controls there are over the range of heart valves which may be purchased by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the health authority concerned. The Department advises authorities to purchase from manufacturers registered under its manufacturer registration scheme or equivalent scheme of manufacturing quality assurance.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many companies supply artificial heart valves to the National Health Service; and in which countries these companies are based.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Currently nine companies supply heart valves to the United Kingdom National Health Service. Their manufacturing sites are based in the USA, Switzerland, Puerto Rico, Canada, Italy and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will request the Medicines Commission urgently to establish a licensing system for artificial heart valves and other specialised devices used for medical purposes;

  (2) if the Medicines Commission has considered the need to license and monitor the use of artificial heart valves.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Use of heart valves in the United Kingdom is monitored since 1986 by the national heart valve registry at Hammersmith hospital. The Medicines Commission has expressed concern about certain products, including critical medical devices such as heart valves, but accepts that adequate provision for the necessary controls should be pursued through the current European Commission initiatives for the harmonisation of regulation of these devices.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if any heart valves which have been refused licences in the United States of America have been used by the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are aware of two United States manufactured heart valves used in the National Health Service where marketing approval in the United States of America was withheld, pending receipt of further clinical data.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in the last year for which figures are available how many yellow cards were received reporting failures of artificial heart valves.
  164
  Mr. Dorrell
  Medical devices such as heart valves are not included in the "yellow card" reporting system. However, the Department's national defect reporting centre for medical device incidents has received four reports of mechanical failure of heart valves in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many British heart patients died because of a faulty artificial heart valve in the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are aware of 15 deaths in the United Kingdom in the last five years due to mechanical failure of implanted valves. All were implanted prior to the setting up of the United Kingdom heart valve registry in January 1986.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the European Economic community has put forward any proposals to control the use of artificial heart valves.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An EC working document is in preparation which is intended to lead to a directive to harmonise the regulation of all non-powered medical devices, including heart valves.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health approximately how many artificial heart valves are fitted annually; and what is the estimated percentage that are successful.

  Mr. Dorrell
  About 5,000 artificial heart valves are implanted annually in the United Kingdom, 94 per cent. of these patients survive surgery and leave hospital.

  Exhaust Fumes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies are being carried out by his Department to assess the effects on human health of inhalation of exhaust fumes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No studies are being carried out by the Department.

  The concentrations of pollutants in the United Kingdom associated with traffic sources are, in most circumstances, below those assessed by the World Health Organisation and other advisory groups to have detectable effects on health. The effects of airborne emissions of pollutants at levels currently experienced cannot be isolated from many other factors unrelated to air contaminants which may contribute to health problems.

  GP Contracts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there are any outstanding payments under the new general practice service contracts not completed as due from 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All Family practitioner Committees made payments to the GPs on the due date. Most FPCs made payments calculated in detail; the remainder made estimated payments only, to be adjusted shortly when the detailed calculations have been completed.

  Health Authority Accounts
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish the 1989–90 financial accounts special cost forms of individual health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The annual accounts of health authorities are regarded as documents within the public domain which are normally laid before authorities' members meeting in public session. The Department consolidates submitted annual accounts into an England summary which is presented to the National Audit Office by 30 November each year. It is the responsibility of the National Audit Office to publish the summarised accounts, following their audit, in an annual series of House of Commons papers.

  Financial returns of health authorities which provide information on the costs of health authorities' services, are submitted to the Department which, after processing

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  a. Drugs and Therapeutic Bulletin and Adverse Drug reaction Bulletin

  581,300

  728,500

  452,000

  660,600

  723,500

  b. Prescribes Journal

  —

  —

  122,900

  129,900

  127,100

  c. Health Trends

  —

  —

  105,400

  116,200

  106,500

  d. British National Formulary

  736,400

  835,300

  924,400

  987,500

  1,054,900

  e. PACT Data

  —

  —

  —

  833,700

  901,000

  Footnotes

  1. The Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin and Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin are funded jointly. Records are not held of disaggregated costs. Figures given are for printing and distribution costs invoiced in each of the years.

  2. Details of costs for Prescriber's Journal and Health Trends are not available for 1985–86 and 1986–87 as they cannot be disaggregated from other Departmental printing and publishing costs. The costs provided for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are estimated as final costs are not yet available. Editions of both publications due for issue in February 1990 have been postponed to June/July 1990. Postage costs were paid in advance in 1989–90 but printing costs will be incurred in 1990–91.

  3. The PACT system came into operation in August 1988—hence there are no costs attributable to PACT data in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88. The figures given are for the full cost of production and distribution including staff costs and systems support, maintenance and operation.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money is likely to be spent in each of the next five years on(a) employing independent medical advisers within the NHS, (b) the cost of running the medicines resource centre and the distribution of its monthly bulletin, (c) the provision of PACT data, (d) the distribution of the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, (e) the Prescribers Journal (f) Health Trends, (g) the British National Formulary (h) the Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin and (i) the NHS management executive guide to self-audit and research, abridged and unabridged versions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The information requested is not yet available for the next five years. The estimated costs in England for 1990–91 are supplied in the table. We expect costs of the same order for the following four years.

  1990–91 £

  (a) Independent Medical Advisers (including support staff and training)

  5,000,000

  (b) Medicines Resource Centre (including distribution of monthly bulletins)

  250,000

  (c) PACT Data1

  993,000

  (d) Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin2

  770,000

  and

  Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin2

  (e) Prescribes' Journal

  140,000

  166
  them, compiles salient data into national tables in an annual series of booklets. The publication covering the returns for 1989–90 is planned for early in the new year.

  Publications
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money has been spent in each of the last five years on distributing(a) the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, (b) the Prescribers Journal, (c) Health Trends, (d) the British National Formulary, (e) the Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin and (f) prescribing analyses and costs data, to doctors in the NHS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The cost of printing and distributing the publications to professionals and other bodies throughout the National Health Service (in England) in each of the years requested was:

  1990–91 £

  (f) Health Trends

  115,000

  (g) British National Formulary

  1,194,000

  (h) The Analysis of Prescribing in General Practice A Guide to Audit and Research (abridged and unabridged)3

  42,000

  1 The figure given for the cost of PACT Data is for the full cost of production and distribution including staff costs and systems support, maintenance and operation.

  2 The Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin and Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin are invoiced jointly—it is not possible to disaggregate the costs. Funding of the Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin ceases after the June 1990 issue.

  3 The cost of the Analysis of Prescribing in General Practice was incurred over two financial years. This was a one-off exercise to issue the guide to all practices in England. We do not anticipate there being any additional costs after 1990–91.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Funeral Grant
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he estimates it would cost his Department to provide a statutory payment of £600 to all pensioners and dependants of pensioners as a funeral grant.
  167
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The cost of supplying a statutory payment of £600 as a funeral grant to all people over state pension age is around £300 million per year.

  Benefit Values
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the value of supplementary benefits/income support received each year since 1979 by a unemployed husband aged 30 years, wife aged 29 years, and children aged five and 11 years, excluding benefit in respect of housing costs, assuming they were in good health and did not require any special diet, did not need extra baths and did not wear out their clothing unusually quickly, did not require extra laundry facilities, and had accommodation of average size and condition for such a family, assuming they were not in receipt of any other social security benefits other than unemployment benefit; and if he will give the figures both at current prices and at constant 1990 prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: The information requested is shown in the tables, with two separate measures of the real value of the benefit. In table A the benefit rates at each uprating date are revalued to April 1990. In table B the real value of benefit has been averaged over the whole period during which the relevant benefit rates applied.

  Table A

  Uprating Date

  Actual Rates

  Actual Rates in 1990 Prices1

  12 November 1979

  43.65

  82.86

  24 November 1980

  52.80

  86.92

  23 November 1981

  57.55

  84.61

  22 November 1982

  63.60

  88.00

  21 November 1983

  66.35

  87.84

  26 November 1984

  69.50

  88.61

  25 November 1985

  73.05

  88.80

  28 July 1986

  73.90

  88.55

  6 April 1987

  75.35

  87.57

  11 April 1988

  84.45

  94.58

  10 April 1989

  90.40

  96.13

  9 April 1990

  95.55

  95.55

  Table A

  Scale Rate

  Actual rates single householder aged 201

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices

  Percentage change

  Actual rates single non-householder aged 201

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices

  Percentage change

  Actual rates couple aged over 251

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices

  Percentage change

  12 November 1979

  Basic

  18.30

  34.74

  —

  14.65

  27.81

  —

  29.70

  56.38

  —

  Long Term

  23.70

  44.99

  —

  18.95

  35.97

  —

  37.65

  71.47

  —

  24 November 1980

  Basic

  21.30

  35.06

  0.9

  17.05

  28.07

  0.9

  34.60

  56.96

  1.0

  Long Term

  27.15

  44.69

  -0.7

  21.70

  35.72

  -0.7

  43.45

  71.53

  0.1

  22 November 1981

  Basic

  23.25

  34.18

  -2.5

  18.60

  27.35

  -2.6

  37.75

  55.50

  -2.6

  Long Term

  29.60

  43.52

  -2.6

  23.65

  34.77

  -2.7

  47.35

  69.62

  -2.7

  22 November 1982

  Basic

  25.70

  35.56

  4.0

  20.55

  28.43

  4.0

  41.70

  57.70

  4.0

  Long Term

  32.70

  45.25

  4.0

  26.15

  36.18

  4.1

  52.30

  72.37

  4.0

  21 November 1983

  Basic

  26.80

  35.48

  0.2

  21.45

  28.40

  -0.1

  43.50

  57.59

  -0.2

  Long Term

  34.10

  45.14

  -0.2

  27.25

  36.08

  -0.3

  54.55

  72.22

  -0.2

  168
  1 Constant April 1990 prices at dates shown.

  2 The figures reflect the fact that the RPI is the appropriate index until 1983 and thereafter the RPI less housing costs is appropriate (from November 1983 onwards).

  Table B

  Period

  Actual rates £

  Actual rates in 1990 prices1 £

  November 1978 to October 1979

  37.10

  77.12

  November 1979 to October 1980

  43.65

  76.61

  November 1980 to October 1981

  52.80

  82.40

  November 1981 to October 1982

  57.55

  81.85

  November 1982 to October 1983

  63.60

  86.43

  November 1983 to October 1984

  66.35

  86.27

  November 1984 to October 1985

  69.50

  86.31

  November 1985 to June 1986

  73.05

  88.13

  July 1986 to March 1987

  73.90

  87.45

  April 1987 to March 1988

  75.35

  86.54

  April 1988 to March 1989

  84.45

  92.70

  April 1989 to March 1990

  90.40

  94.08

  1 Average of constant April 1990 prices in the periods shown.

  Note:

  The figures reflect that the retail prices index is the appropriate index until 1983 and thereafter retail prices index less housing costs is appropriate (from November 1983 onwards).

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the level of the supplementary benefit/income support for each year since 1979 scale rates and for(a) a single person aged 20 years and (b) a non-pensioner couple aged over 25 years both at current prices and at 1990 constant prices; and what was the percentage change each year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 28 June 1990]: As the question does not specify the exact circumstances, household status, or length of time spent on benefit for either client group, the tables provide information to cover each possible circumstance.

  The information requested is shown in the tables with two separate measures of the real value of the benefit. In table A the benefit rates at each uprating date are revalued to April 1990. In table B the real value of benefit has been averaged over the whole period during which the relevant benefit rates applied. In each case the percentage change since the previous year is shown.
  169

  Scale Rate

  Actual rates single householder aged 201

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices

  Percentage change

  Actual rates single non-householder aged 201

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices

  Percentage change

  Actual rates couple aged over 251

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices

  Percentage change

  26 November 1984

  Basic

  28.05

  35.76

  0.8

  22.45

  28.62

  0.8

  45.55

  58.07

  0.8

  Long Term

  35.70

  45.51

  0.8

  28.55

  36.40

  0.9

  57.10

  72.80

  0.8

  25 November 1985

  Basic

  29.50

  35.86

  0.3

  23.60

  28.69

  0.2

  47.85

  58.17

  0.2

  Long Term

  37.50

  45.58

  0.2

  30.00

  36.47

  0.2

  60.00

  72.94

  0.2

  28 July 1986

  Basic

  29.80

  35.71

  -0.4

  23.85

  28.58

  -0.4

  48.40

  57.99

  -0.3

  Long Term

  37.90

  45.41

  -0.4

  30.35

  36.37

  -0.3

  60.65

  72.67

  -0.4

  6 April 1987

  Basic

  30.40

  35.33

  -1.1

  24.35

  28.30

  -1.0

  49.35

  57.35

  -1.1

  Long Term

  38.65

  44.92

  -1.1

  30.95

  35.97

  -1.1

  61.85

  71.88

  -1.1

  11 April 1988

  —

  26.05

  29.18

  —3

  26.05

  29.18

  —3

  51.45

  57.62

  —3

  10 April 1989

  —

  27.40

  29.14

  -0.1

  27.40

  29.14

  -0.1

  54.80

  58.28

  1.2

  9 April 1990

  —

  28.80

  28.80

  -1.2

  28.80

  28.80

  -1.2

  57.60

  57.60

  -1.2

  Notes:

  1 Actual scale rate appropriate to each group, excluding any housing costs and with no additional requirements.

  2 Constant April 1990 prices at the dates shown.

  3 As the introduction of Income Support ended the distinctions between householders/non-householders and the basic and long term rates of benefit it is not possible to provide relevant year on year comparisons between 1987 and 1988.

  4 The figures reflect the fact that the RPI is the appropriate index until 1983 and thereafter the RPI less housing costs is appropriate (from November 1983 onwards).

  Table B

  Scale Rate

  Actual rates single householder aged 201

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices2

  Percentage change

  Actual rates Single non-householder aged 201

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices2

  Percentage change

  Actual rates Couple aged over 251

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices2

  Percentage change

  November 1978–October 1979

  Basic

  15.55

  32.32

  —

  12.45

  25.88

  —

  25.25

  52.48

  —

  Long term

  19.90

  41.36

  —

  15.95

  33.15

  —

  31.55

  65.58

  —

  November 1979–October 1980

  Basic

  18.30

  32.12

  -0.6

  14.65

  25.71

  -0.7

  29.70

  52.13

  -0.7

  Long Term

  23.70

  41.60

  0.6

  18.95

  33.26

  0.3

  37.65

  66.08

  0.8

  November 1980–October 1981

  Basic

  21.30

  33.24

  3.5

  17.05

  26.61

  3.5

  34.60

  54.00

  3.6

  Long Term

  27.15

  42.37

  1.9

  21.70

  33.86

  1.8

  43.45

  67.81

  2.6

  November 1981–October 1982

  Basic

  23.25

  33.07

  -0.5

  18.60

  26.46

  -0.6

  37.75

  53.69

  -0.6

  Long Term

  29.60

  42.10

  -0.6

  23.65

  33.64

  -0.7

  47.35

  67.35

  -0.7

  November 1982–October 1983

  Basic

  25.70

  34.93

  5.6

  20.55

  27.93

  5.6

  41.70

  56.67

  5.6

  Long Term

  32.70

  44.44

  5.6

  26.15

  35.54

  5.7

  52.30

  71.08

  5.5

  November 1983–October 1984

  Basic

  26.80

  34.85

  -0.2

  21.45

  27.89

  -0.1

  43.50

  56.56

  -0.2

  Long Term

  34.10

  44.34

  -0.2

  27.25

  35.43

  -0.3

  54.55

  70.93

  -0.2

  November 1984–October 1985

  Basic

  28.05

  34.83

  -0.1

  22.45

  27.88

  -0.1

  45.55

  56.57

  0.1

  Long Term

  35.70

  44.33

  -0.1

  28.55

  35.45

  0.1

  57.10

  70.91

  -0.1

  November 1985–June 1986

  Basic

  29.50

  35.59

  2.2

  23.60

  28.47

  2.1

  47.85

  57.73

  2.1

  Long Term

  37.50

  45.24

  2.1

  30.00

  36.19

  2.1

  60.00

  72.38

  2.1

  July 1986–March 1987

  Basic

  29.80

  35.26

  -0.9

  23.85

  28.22

  -0.9

  48.40

  57.27

  -0.8

  Long Term

  37.90

  44.85

  -0.9

  30.35

  35.91

  -0.8

  60.65

  71.77

  -0.8

  170 171

  Scale Rate

  Actual rates single householder aged 201

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices2

  Percentage change

  Actual rates Single non-householder aged 201

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices2

  Percentage change

  Actual rates Couple aged over 251

  Actual rates in April 1990 prices2

  Percentage change

  April 1987–March 1988

  Basic

  30.40

  34.91

  -1.0

  24.35

  27.97

  -0.9

  49.35

  56.68

  -1.0

  Long Term

  38.65

  44.39

  -1.0

  30.95

  35.55

  -1.0

  61.85

  71.03

  -1.0

  April 1988–March 1989

  —

  26.05

  28.59

  3—

  26.05

  28.59

  3—

  51.45

  56.48

  3—

  April 1989–March 1990

  —

  27.40

  28.52

  -0.2

  27.40

  28.52

  -0.2

  54.80

  57.03

  -1.0

  Notes:

  1. Actual scale rate appropriate to each group, excluding any housing costs and with no additional requirements.

  2. Average of constant April 1990 prices in the periods shown.

  3. As the introduction of Income Support ended the distinctions between householders/non householders and basic or long term rates of benefit it is not possible to provide relevant year on year comparisons between 1987 and 1988.

  4. The figures reflect the fact that the RPI is the appropriate index until 1983 and thereafter the RPI less housing costs is appropriate (from November 1983 onwards).

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to his answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 559, if he will set out the real terms value of supplementary benefit income support for (a) a young person aged 20 years who is unemployed and: (i) a householder and (ii) a non-householder and (b) a married couple aged over 25 years where the husband is unemployed, the wife not working, and with children aged five and 10 years, each year since 1979, on an index basis taking 1979 as 100.

  Table A.

  Single householder aged 20 unemployed

  Single non-householder aged 20 unemployed

  Married couple unemployed with two children 5 and 10

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)

  (2)

  £

  £

  £

  12 November 1979

  18.30

  100.0

  16.35

  100.0

  42.20

  100.0

  24 November 1980

  21.30

  100.9

  19.20

  101.8

  49.20

  101.1

  23 November 1981

  23.25

  98.4

  21.15

  100.2

  53.55

  98.3

  22 November 1982

  25.70

  102.4

  23.65

  105.4

  59.20

  102.3

  21 November 1983

  26.80

  102.1

  24.55

  104.7

  61.80

  102.1

  26 November 1984

  28.05

  102.9

  25.75

  105.8

  64.75

  103.0

  25 November 1985

  29.50

  103.2

  27.50

  107.7

  68.05

  103.3

  28 July 1986

  29.80

  102.8

  23.85

  92.1

  68.80

  102.9

  6 April 1987

  30.40

  101.7

  24.35

  91.2

  70.15

  101.8

  11 April 1988

  26.05

  84.0

  26.05

  94.0

  79.10

  110.6

  10 April 1989

  27.40

  83.9

  27.40

  93.9

  84.80

  112.6

  9 April 1990

  28.80

  82.9

  28.80

  92.8

  89.65

  111.9

  Notes:

  1 Column (1) shows actual benefit rates excluding housing costs, which were paid through supplementary benefit until 1982–83 then met via housing benefit, and any additional requirements for example extra heating, laundry, special diets.

  2 Column (2) shows value of column (1) in real terms, on and index basis taking 12 November 1979=100.

  3 The figures reflect the fact that the RPI is the appropriate index until 1982–83 and thereafter the RPI less housing costs is appropriate (from November 1983 onwards).

  Table B

  Single householder aged 20 unemployed

  Single non-householder aged 20 unemployed

  Married couple unemployed with two children aged 5 and 10

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)

  (2)

  £

  £

  £

  November 1978 to October 1979

  15.55

  100.0

  13.90

  100.0

  35.85

  100.0

  November 1979 to October 1980

  18.30

  99.4

  16.35

  99.3

  42.20

  99.4

  November 1980 to October 1981

  21.30

  102.8

  19.20

  103.7

  49.20

  103.0

  November 1981 to October 1982

  23.25

  102.3

  21.15

  104.1

  53.55

  102.2

  November 1982 to October 1983

  25.70

  108.1

  23.65

  111.2

  59.20

  108.0

  November 1983 to October 1984

  26.80

  107.8

  24.55

  110.5

  61.80

  107.8

  November 1984 to October 1985

  28.05

  107.8

  25.75

  110.7

  64.75

  107.9

  November 1985 to June 1986

  29.50

  110.1

  27.50

  114.8

  68.05

  110.2

  July 1986 to March 1987

  29.80

  109.1

  23.85

  97.7

  68.80

  109.3

  April 1987 to March 1988

  30.40

  108.0

  24.35

  96.8

  70.15

  108.1

  172
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is shown in the tables, with two separate measures of the real value of benefit. Table A gives the benefit rates at each uprating date in real terms indexed to November 1979=100. Table B gives the real value of benefit averaged over the whole period during which the relevant benefit rates applied, indexed to 100 for the average for the period November 1978 to October 1979.
  173

  Single householder aged 20 unemployed

  Single non-householder aged 20 unemployed

  Married couple unemployed with two children aged 5 and 10

  April 1988 to March 1989

  26.05

  88.5

  26.05

  99.0

  79.10

  116.5

  April 1989 to March 1990

  27.40

  88.2

  27.40

  98.7

  84.80

  118.4

  Notes:

  1 Column (1) shows actual benefit rates for the periods shown excluding housing costs, which were paid through supplementary benefit until 1982–83 then met via housing benefit, and any additional requirements for example extra heating, laundry, special diets.

  2 Column (2) shows the average real value of column (1) between the dates shown, on an index basis taking the period November 1978 to October 1979=100.

  3 The figures reflect the fact that the RPI is the appropriate index until 1983 and thereafter the RPI less housing costs is appropriate (from November 1983 onwards).

SCOTLAND

  Capercaillie
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum he intends to spend on research on the capercaillie.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Most of the responses to my consultation letter of 23 March on whether to introduce a statutory ban on shooting capercaillie have commented on the need for research. I shall announce my views on the consultation soon.

  Low Pay Unit
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish low pay unit on overtime, and the pay of Scotland's adult work force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  During the past year my right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations from the Scottish low pay unit. Since 1979 earnings at all levels have increased significantly in real terms with the lower paid sharing in the prosperity created by a vigorous free enterprise economy.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of children under 14 years of age who were killed or injured as pedestrians involved in road accidents during the last 12 months in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest information available centrally is for 1989 for children aged 14 years and under. The provisional figures are:—

  Fatal

  Per cent.

  Serious

  Per cent.

  Slight

  Per cent.

  Total

  26

  (-26)

  728

  (-2)

  1,570

  (+6)

  2,324

  These figures would appear to show an improvement over the previous years for fatal and serious injuries, but a small increase in the number of slight injuries involved in road accidents. However, I would stress that these figures are provisional, final figures will be published later in the year in "Road Accidents Scotland 1989".

  GPs' Budgets
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those practices in Grampian and Tayside regions who are taking part in the shadow fundholding project for general practitioners.
  174
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Forfar

  Dr. G. Peterkin and Partners

  Dr. A. F. Catto and Partners

  Dr. S. M. Birse and Partner

  Grampian

  Dr. G. H. McIntosh and Partners

  Dr. A. F. Maclean and Partners

  Dr. J. M. Taylor and Partners

  Dr. G. A. Taylor and Partners

  Dr. R. J. Stewart and Partners and Dr. D. J. Murray and Partners

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of Scotland's historic buildings are being eroded as a result of acid rain; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: There is no accurate information available upon which to determine how many of Scotland's historic buildings are being eroded as a result of acid rain. The issues involved are complex and further detailed research is required to clarify and assess all the factors involved.

  Officials of the Scottish Development Department participated in the Department of the Environment's building effects review group on acid deposition which reported in 1989. A current national materials exposure programme arising from the group's recommendations includes five sites in Scotland. There will be continued co-operation in future research programmes with a view to answering many of the outstanding questions which were raised following the publication of the group's first report.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the impact of the changes in design to the proposed bridge to Skye upon(a) the likely construction costs involved, (b) the proposed timetable for the submission of plans and (c) the level of toll charge to be levied; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: In my announcement on 3 July I said that the welcome reduction of 6 m in the required navigational clearance for a bridge to Skye removed the need for either major embankments or a viaduct over Eilean Ban or Eilean Dubh, which previously caused concern regarding visual impact.

  The exact changes in construction costs have not been assessed; but it is expected that they will be reduced. The timetable is unlikely to be affected. The levels of toll charges will form part of each tenderer's bid and the exact

  175
  amounts are therefore unknown as yet; however, the toll charges will be no greater than current ferry fares in real terms and must allow for existing concessions to users.

  Mental Welfare Commission
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the qualifications and reasons for appointment of Mrs. Iris Isbister to the Mental Welfare Commission; and if he will review the appointment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [ holding answer 9 July 1990]: I am well satisfied that Mr. Isbister is well qualified on grounds of her experience and her interest in the field to be a member of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. Prior to becoming chairman of Forth Valley health board she was an active member of a number of organisations involved with mental health, including the Stirling Association for Mental Health.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Schools (Local Management)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of local management in schools.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to ensure the smooth implementation of local management of schools.

  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to ensure the smooth implementation of local management of schools.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to ensure the smooth implementation of local management of schools.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current implementation of local management of schools.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent responses he has had to local management of schools; whether he has any further proposals relating to local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Eighty-seven local education authorities introduced local management schemes in April 1990. Most headteachers and governors welcome the prospect of greater autonomy in the running of their schools. I have recently announced an increase in the programme of education support grants to help implement this important reform. Supported expenditure will increase from £36 million to £61 million in 1991–92.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of Kirklees council's total schools' budget has been passed on to individual schools with the introduction of local management schemes; and what was the comparable figure for Government targets and guidelines.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The budget statement provided by Kirklees local education authority under section 42 of the 176
  Education Reform Act, indicates that 65 per cent. of the general schools budget—GSB—is being passed down to individual schools. The discretionary exceptions, subject to the Government's limit of 10 per cent. of the GSB, account for 9.2 per cent. of the GSB. The discretionary exceptions not subject to any Government limit account for 14 per cent. of the GSB.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of local management in schools in Northumberland county council.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Northumberland local education authority's scheme for local management of schools was approved on 15 March 1990 for introduction on 1 April 1990. The LEA appears to be making a most satisfactory start to local management. The Government are supporting the introduction of LMS in Northumberland through £402,400 of specific grant in this financial year alone.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications for grant-maintained status he has received; and how many he has approved.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have obtained grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the impact of the national curriculum on small schools in rural areas.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate shows that most schools are making satisfactory or good progress with introducing the national curriculum. HMI has reported no overall difference in standards of implementation between small schools and others.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any recent representations regarding the implementation of the student loans scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier reply to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress towards the introduction of student loans.

  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made on setting up the Students Loans Company Ltd.
  177
  Mr. Jackson
  The Student Loans Company is making good progress, completing its computer systems and recruiting clerical staff needed for the autumn. It is also holding constructive discussions with the higher education institutions about the certification of students' eligibility. This bodes well for the introduction of the scheme this autumn.

  Teachers' Duties
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is planning any changes in the timing of the implementation of the national curriculum as it relates to teachers' duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from special schools in Norfolk about the availability of speech therapists.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations on the subject from special schools in Norfolk.

  Sixth-form Students
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the needs for a broader curriculum for sixth-form students.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has this under active consideration. Advanced supplementary examinations supply one means of adding breadth to advanced-level studies. Wider availability in schools of vocational courses would also deliver greater breadth. In addition, my right hon. Friend expects shortly to receive from the School Examinations and Assessment Council advice on the scope for embodying in the programmes of all advanced-level students a range of core skills needed for adult working life.

  Secondary Education, Sheffield
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning budgetary provision for secondary education in Sheffield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has received only three such representations since 1 April, when Sheffield's local management of schools scheme was introduced.

  Further Education
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase the number of 16-year-olds entering full-time further education.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase the number of 16-year-olds entering full-time further education.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase the number of 16-year-olds entering full-time further education.
  178
  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) on 12 June 1990,Official Report, column 169.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement regarding education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement regarding education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement regarding education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government believe that many more young people should be participating in education and training, both full time and part time. Participation in full-time post-compulsory education has increased very substantially in recent years.

  The Government are doing much to encourage the development of education and training beyond 16. We are committed to maintaining the standards of A-levels and advanced supplementary examinations, and to improving their effectiveness in meeting both the needs of students and the requirements of higher education and employment. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications has been established to put in place a coherent framework of relevant vocational qualifications. Steps are being taken more generally to make the range of courses and qualifications available to this age group more attractive, notably by the development of core skills which all young people and adults will need in future in all walks of life.

  Training credits for 16 and 17-year-olds who have left full-time education are to be piloted from next year. They will make clear to young people their entitlement to training. They have the potential to increase significantly the number of young people in jobs who receive worthwhile education and training.

  Community Charge Capping
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has made an assessment of the effects of charge capping upon the delivery of the education service.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has made an assessment of the effects of charge capping upon the delivery of the education service.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has considered all the representations made to him by the capped authorities, including those about service delivery, together with all other information he considers relevant, and he is satisfied that the final caps he is proposing will permit them to maintain their services at a reasonable level.

  Businesses
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps the Government are taking-to encourage business men to take greater interest in education and to value good education more highly.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The business community is becoming increasingly aware of the importance of
  179
  education in helping to meet the challenges of the 1990s, both nationally and internationally. The constructive involvement of the business community at all levels in education continues to be a major plank of this Government's policies. We have made statutory provision to encourage this in the governing of institutions, and have encouraged training to make this effective. We have also taken a range of other initiatives, both alone and in conjunction with other Departments and outside organisations to promote continuing links between education and industry, building on the substantial progress of the last decade.

  Pre-school Education
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the number of pre-school education places.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the number of pre-school education places.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding pre-school education; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding pre-school education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current level of teacher vacancies in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current level of teacher vacancies throughout London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 12 June 1990,Official Report, column 168. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish later this month the data for teacher vacancies as at January 1990.

  University Education
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average cost of university education over the three years of graduates in(a) social sciences, (b) languages and (c) physical sciences.

  Mr. Jackson
  Expenditure is not disaggregated in the form requested. However, an indication of the costs of teaching in the relevant subjects met annually from block grant and tuition fees is given by the University Funding Council's current "guide prices", as follows:
  180

  £

  Economics, Sociology, etc.

  2,700

  Politics, Law, etc.

  2,200

  Applied Social Work

  3,400

  Languages

  2,900

  Physical Sciences

  4,600

  Adult Vocational Training
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funding has been made available for 1990–91 to support adult vocational training initiatives.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1990–91, a total of £16 million is available to support adult vocational training initiatives from funds made available by my right hon. Friend.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on recent progress in promoting the teaching of Spanish, German and Russian in maintained schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The national curriculum includes a modern foreign language as a foundation subject to be studied by all pupils aged 11 to 16 in maintained secondary schools. German, Russian and Spanish are among the languages which may qualify as the foreign language foundation subject. Within this framework, we are encouraging schools to offer a greater diversity of languages such as German, Spanish and Russian and we have made provision within the specific grant programme for 1991–92 for local education authorities to bid for funds for the diversification of first foreign languages.

  Universities
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has recently had any meetings with the chairman of the University Funding Council to discuss funding and management of universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Universities Funding Council from time to time in the course of normal business.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the pupil-teacher ratio in England and Wales; and what information he has on the figure for Japan.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The readily available information for the United Kingdom, upon which international comparisons are usually made, and Japan, is as follows:

  Pupil/teacher ratios by level, 1985–86

  Japan

  UK1

  Up to 1st level (nursery and primary)

  22.42

  22.03

  2nd level (secondary and further education)

  19.1

  14.234

  1 The overall ratio for public sector schools in England decreased from 18.9 in 1978–89 to 17.0 in 1987–88. The corresponding ratios for

  181

  Wales are 19.3 and 18.6. Government policy has been to allow teacher numbers to fall at a slower rate than pupil numbers.

  2 Partly estimated.

  3 Public sector.

  4 The UK figure for secondary schools only is 15.7.

  Schools, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next intends to visit Bradford to look at maintained schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I hope to take up the hon. Member's invitation to visit Bradford during the next academic year.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on implementation of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made on the introduction of the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There is welcome evidence from Her Majesty's inspectorate that many schools have made a satisfactory start in implementing the national curriculum. My right hon. Friend is taking steps to ensure that the introduction of the new requirements is manageable for teachers.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the city technology college programme.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The city technology college programme continues to make excellent progress. Three colleges are up and running, a further eight are due to open in September 1990 and 1991, and my right hon. Friend is currently consulting on proposals for a further three.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the total amount of government expenditure on the city technology college programme to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Up to the end of the 1989–90 financial year, a total of £46 million has been incurred on the CTC programme, covering project start-up costs, capital and recurrent funding.

  Teachers (Overseas Advertising)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to issue guidelines to local education authorities regarding overseas advertising for teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to issue guidelines to local education authorities regarding overseas advertising for teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to issue 182
  guidelines to local education authorities regarding overseas advertising for teaching staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie).

  Pupil Testing
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has to report following the pilot projects standard assessment tests at seven years.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of his current proposals to introduce testing of children at seven years of age.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has to report following the pilot projects for standard assessment tests at seven years.

  Mr. O?Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his plans for the introduction of testing of children at seven years of age.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) on 20 June 1990,Official Report, column 558 and on 26 June 1990, Official Report, column 133.

  Fairfield High School
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make an official visit to Fairfield high school in Herefordshire to examine the pyramid arrangements with local primary schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to visit Hereford and Worcester. I myself paid an official visist there in November last year, and was glad to have the opportunity to see some excellent practices in the schools I visited.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to report to Parliament the findings of the committee examining education for the under-fives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I expect to submit the report of the committee to my right hon. Friend shortly.

  School-leaving Age
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give further consideration to bringing forward legislation to bring the statutory school-leaving age into line with other European countries.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No. The Government believe that young people should be allowed a real choice at age 16 of the various forms of education and training on offer, or of
  183
  commencing employment. There has never been so high a proportion of young people in the 16 to 19 age group engaged in education or training.

  Education, Gloucestershire
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the director of education of Gloucestershire county council to discuss education in Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet him.

  Secondary Schools, Staffordshire
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil at secondary schools in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In actual cash Staffordshire spent £530 per secondary pupil in 1978–79 and £1,610 per secondary pupil in 1988–89. At 1988–89 prices those figures are £1,165 and £1,610 respectively.

  School Building and Improvements
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total sum requested by local authorities for new school building and improvements last year; and what was the total sum allocated.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The total of LEA plans for education capital expenditure in 1989–90 was £1.03 billion. The capital allocation was £352 million. The total of LEA plans for 1990–91 was over £1.3 billion. Under the new system of local government capital finance, my right hon. Friend has announced the availability of annual capital guidelines for education of £485 million.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the future of grammar school education in England.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for local education authorities to decide whether to bring forward proposals to change the pattern of organisation of their schools, including the establishment or discontinuance of grammar schools. My right hon. Friend considers all such proposals on their merits, having regard to the wishes of local parents.

  Teacher Recruitment, Essex
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about teacher recruitment in Essex.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Essex is receiving £60,000 education support grant this year to help with a programme of measures to improve teacher recruitment. These include the appointment of a recruitment team, local refresher courses for those returning to teaching, counselling facilities, work shadowing, keeping in touch schemes, local advertising campaigns and the provision of four creches for teachers' children.
  184
  In addition the local education authority and the county council's housing department are negotiating with a housing association to provide low-cost accommodation for teachers; the LEA plans to recruit 25 licensed teachers and is co-operating with Thames polytechnic and other LEAs on a scheme to recruit teachers from the Netherlands.

  Special Needs Education, Hampshire
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the funding of special needs education in Hampshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from schools in Hampshire concerning the funding arrangements for pupils with special educational needs, in the authority's scheme for the local management of schools. He has approved these arrangements for the first year of the scheme's operation only. Officers in the authority are working with schools to determine funding arrangements which reflect more clearly and objectively the needs of Hampshire's schools and their pupils.

  Deaf and Blind Children
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last reviewed the educational provisions for deaf and blind children.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department wrote to all local education authorities in England on 18 May 1990, asking for their views on the education of deaf-blind children and what provision they made at present for such education. This survey follows up the policy statement on the education of deaf-blind children which the Department published in March 1989.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he proposes to take steps to encourage the study of foreign languages.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are concerned to increase the number of pupils continuing to study a modern foreign language until age 16 and beyond. That is why the national curriculum includes a modern foreign language as a foundation subject to be studied by all pupils aged 11 to 16 in maintained secondary schools. The national curriculum working group for modern foreign languages is due to submit its final report by the end Of this month, to enable attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages to be implemented in schools from autumn 1992.

  Teacher Supply
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations from teachers in the northern and midland regions regarding the level of teacher supply.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No regional breakdown of statistics of correspondence received is available. My right ho n. Friend has certainly received correspondence from the northern and midland regions—as from elsewhere.

  Global Environmental Programmes
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the science budget for 1990–91 is being committed specifically for research into global environmental programmes.

  Mr. Jackson
  In the 1990–91 financial year, it is estimated that some 5 per cent. of the science budget of £897 million will be spent on research into global environmental programmes.

  School Finance
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have published notices in accordance with section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988; and if he will list for each local education authority what proportion of the general schools budget is devolved to schools or indicate when such information is expected to be available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Of the 87 local education authorities required to prepare budget statements for 1990–91 under section 42 of the Education Reform Act, 53 have submitted statements to date. Officials are in contact with the remaining LEAs to ensure that the statements are made available as soon as possible. A table containing as much of the information requested as is available will be published before the end of the month.

  Universities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Association of University Teachers to discuss the level of spending on the universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend met the AUT in November 1989. He has received that association's recent substantial statement on this subject but has not met it to discuss its points further.

  Women (Higher Education)
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the proportion of women in higher education(a) today and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1988–89, a total of 44 per cent. of all home full-time and part-time students in higher education in Great Britain were women. The comparable figure for the academic year 1979–80 was 37 per cent.

  Chemistry Students
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to encourage and enable the Universities Funding Council to increase the number of polymer chemists leaving higher education.
  186
  Mr. Jackson
  No. It is for institutions, in consultation with the Universities Funding Council, to determine levels of provision in the light of perceived demand.

  Management Information Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when his Department will publish the report on management information systems for colleges of further education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The project team commissioned by the Department, together with the Training Agency and the Welsh Office, to conduct a quality assurance study of computerised management information systems in further education, presented its findings in March this year. It was decided that the greatest value would be obtained from the study if a report was produced which set the team's findings within a wider national context and drew attention to related developments. This report is currently being written and should be ready for publication in early autumn.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to amend the regulations made under section 12 of the Education Act 1981 relating to the approval of special schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has today issued for consultation draft amending regulations and a related draft circular which will update requirements for the approval of special schools. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to set up a working group to recommend attainment targets and programmes of study for physical education within the national curriculum for England and Wales.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided to establish a working group for physical education. The group will advise on the attainment targets and programmes of study for physical education to be included within the national curriculum in England and Wales.

  The terms of reference and details of membership for the working group will be published tomorrow; copies will be placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Terrorism
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what initiatives have been and are being taken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to combat terrorism.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of their regular consultations on matters affecting their security, the NATO allies occasionally discuss terrorism, but practical co-operation against terrorism is developed in other international bodies.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of British Service personnel killed or injured in Northern Ireland, for each year since 1969, as a result of a terrorist incident.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of armed forces personnel killed, wounded or injured as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland for each year from 1969 to 1990 is as follows:

  Armed forces casualties

  Killed

  Wounded/injured

  1969

  0

  54

  1970

  0

  620

  1971

  48

  390

  1972

  129

  578

  1973

  66

  548

  1974

  35

  483

  1975

  20

  167

  1976

  29

  264

  1977

  29

  187

  1978

  21

  135

  1979

  48

  153

  1980

  17

  77

  1981

  23

  140

  1982

  28

  98

  1983

  15

  88

  1984

  19

  86

  1985

  6

  33

  1986

  12

  55

  1987

  11

  104

  1988

  33

  229

  1989

  13

  190

  1 1990

  7

  98

  Total

  609

  4,777

  1 As at 4 July.

  These figures include Regular Army, UDR (part-time and permanent cadre), RM, RN and RAF personnel. They do not include the TA or reserve forces, which have no security role in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of British service personnel, killed or injured in terrorist attacks, since August 1989; where these incidents took place; and what was the nature of each incident.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Between 1 August 1989 and 5 July 1990 29 service personnel were killed in terrorist bombing or shooting attacks; 13 in Great Britain, two in West Germany, and 14 in Northern Ireland.

  Over the same period 66 service personnel were wounded or injured in terrorist shooting and bombing attacks; 26 in Great Britain, two in West Germany, and 38 in Northern Ireland1.
  188
  Details of the terrorist bombing and shooting attacks that caused these deaths and injuries are as follows:

  Date, casualties, location and nature of incident

  1 September 1989

  Two soldiers were seriously injured when they were shot outside York barracks, Munster, West Germany.

  16 September 1989

  One regular soldier was shot and killed at RUC Coalisland, Northern Ireland.

  22 September 1989

  Eleven regular soldiers were killed and 22 injured when a bomb exploded at the Royal Marines school of music in Deal, Kent, England.

  7 October 1989

  One regular soldier was seriously injured when a hijacked van exploded in the Waterside, Londonderry, Northern Ireland.

  26 October 1989

  Three regular soldiers were injured, not seriously, when they came under close-range mortar fire at Crossmaglen, Northern Ireland.

  26 October 1989

  One RAF airman was shot and killed at Wildenrath, West Germany.

  17 November 1989

  One part-time UDR soldier was fatally wounded when he was ambushed and shot by gunmen as he left his place of duty in Armagh, Northern Ireland, to go home.

  18 November 1989

  Three regular soldiers were killed and one very seriously injured near Mayobridge, South Down, Northern Ireland, when their vehicle was blown up by a bomb buried by the side of the road.

  18 November 1989

  One regular soldier was very seriously injured when an under-car booby trap (UCBT) exploded under his vehicle at the Army married quarters in Colchester, Essex, England.

  27 November 1989

  Two regular soldiers were injured, not seriously, when a bomb in Merrion Park, West Belfast, was detonated as their military patrol passed by it.

  28 November 1989

  One regular soldier was injured, not seriously, as he took cover from, and was hit by, a hoax device thrown over the wall at RUC Springfield road, Belfast.

  1 December 1989

  One off-duty part-time UDR soldier was injured, not seriously, when he was shot by a gunman in the legs and buttocks near Londonderry.

  11 December 1989

  Three regular soldiers were injured, not seriously, when a public house in Londonderry was bombed and masonry fell onto their vehicle.

  13 December 1989

  Two regular soldiers were killed, one seriously injured, and one not seriously injured during a multiple weapon attack upon the permanent vehicle checkpoint (PVCP) at Derryard, Co. Fermanagh, Northern Ireland.

  3 January 1990

  One off-duty part-time UDR soldier was very seriously injured in Co. Londonderry, Northern Ireland, when a UCBT exploded under his vehicle.

  189
  3 January 1990

  Two regular soldiers were injured, not seriously, when a device placed in a water tank in the front garden of a house in west Belfast exploded as a military patrol passed by.

  9 January 1990

  One off-duty part-time UDR soldier was shot and killed by two armed men who entered the shoe shop he worked in at Castlederg, Co. Tyrone, Northern Ireland.

  10 January 1990

  Two regular soldiers were injured, not seriously, when an explosive device in an empty house in west Belfast detonated as a military patrol passed by.

  10 January 1990

  One regular soldier was injured, not seriously, when two explosive devices were thrown at the rear vehicle of a military patrol vehicle on Springfield road, west Belfast.

  20 January 1990

  One full-time UDR soldier was very seriously injured in Co. Tyrone, Northern Ireland, when a UCBT exploded under his car after it had been driven 200m.

  28 January 1990

  One regular soldier was injured, not seriously, when a bomb detonated on the city wall at Londonderry during a parade to commemorate Bloody Sunday.

  11 February 1990

  Three regular soldiers were injured, not seriously, when the helicopter they were in was forced to make an emergency landing in Co. Fermanagh, Northern Ireland because of gunfire damage.

  15 February 1990

  One off-duty part-time UDR soldier was injured, not seriously, when two men shot him whilst he was driving a tractor on his farm in East Tyrone, Northern Ireland.

  17 February 1990

  One regular soldier was injured, not seriously, when a device exploded as the military vehicle he was in passed a house in Dunmurry, Northern Ireland.

  8 March 1990

  One off-duty part-time UDR soldier was shot and killed whilst driving a lorry for his employer at Castlecaulfield, Co. Tyrone, Northern Ireland.

  16 March 1990

  One regular soldier was injured, not seriously, when a shot was fired at a military patrol in Crossmaglen, Northern Ireland.

  24 March 1990

  Two regular soldiers and one UDR soldier were injured, not seriously, when a van exploded outside the RUC station at Ballymena.

  9 April 1990

  Four UDR soldiers were killed when an explosive device in a culvert under a road near Downpatrick, Co. Down, Northern Ireland, detonated as their military vehicle passed over it.

  28 April 1990

  One regular soldier was injured, not seriously, when a military patrol he was in was engaged by automatic gunfire near Drumhill, South Armagh, Northern Ireland.

  28 April 1990

  One UDR soldier and one regular soldier were both injured, not seriously, when two mortar bombs were fired at the PVCP at Strabane, Northern Ireland, and one exploded.

  5 May 1990

  One regular soldier was killed when a military patrol was engaged by automatic gunfire near Cullyhana, South Armagh. Northern Ireland.

  190
  16 May 1990

  One regular soldier was killed and one seriously injured when a UCBT under an Army van exploded near the Army careers information office at Wembley, London.

  21 May 1990

  One regular soldier was injured, not seriously, when an explosive device was thrown at a mobile patrol in west Belfast and detonated.

  1 June 1990

  One regular soldier was killed and two injured when they were shot whilst waiting for a train at Lichfield, Staffordshire, England.

  2 June 1990

  One regular soldier was shot and killed outside his married quarters at Dortmund-Gartenstadt, West Germany.

  10 June 1990

  One off-duty part-time UDR soldier was seriously injured when a UCBT exploded under his vehicle at Lisnaskea, Co. Fermanagh, Northern Ireland.

  28 June 1990

  One regular soldier was seriously injured when a military patrol was engaged by automatic gunfire in the main street of Pomeroy, Co. Tyrone, Northern Ireland.

  2 July 1990

  One regular soldier was injured not seriously, when the RUC station at Grosvenor road, Belfast came under attack from grenades and gunfire.

  1 A further 117 service men were injured in Northern Ireland between 1 August 1989 and 5 July 1990 as a result of the security situation there.

  Options for Change
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving in his current exercise, options for change, to the job implications in the defence industry for(a) Coventry and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The implications of options for change for the balance of expenditure on defence equipment, and hence the defence industry, are being studied but it is too early to say what their impact will be.

  Radiation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the monitoring of radiation levels now being conducted by the Royal Navy in the St. Bride's area of Newport, West; and when he expects to publish the results.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Readings of natural background radiation are routinely taken in areas where nuclear submarines are cleared to berth. In this instance, the berth concerned was Cardiff. Readings are not intended for publication; however, the marine environmental surveys of nuclear submarine berths produced by the defence radiological protection service are published.

  Land Ownership and Use
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Ashfield,Official Report, 6 March, column 719, what was the total acreage used by his Department in 1989; and what are the comparable figures for (a) ownership and (b) use by his Department in (i) 1960, (ii) 1970 and (iii) 1980.
  191
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The relevant figures are shown in the table:

  Year

  Land and Foreshore in MOD Ownership (Freehold and Leashold) (acres)

  Land and Foreshore over which MOD has long term rights (acres)

  1989

  596,265

  249,699

  1980

  618,477

  76,785

  1972

  658,756

  56,331

  1970

  630,096

  53,406

  1960

  782,819

  79,000

  The figures for 1960 and 1970 exclude the Procurement Executive estimate. Title in property held by the former Minister of Aviation Supply was transferred to the Secretary of State for Defence on 1 May 1971; figures for 1972 have been included in the table to reflect these changes.

  The increase in land held under rights in 1989 is due to the renewal of two leases which granted long-term rights over areas where previous arrangements were on a short-term basis and did not qualify for inclusion in the statistics. Records of land used under rights for periods of less than three years are not held centrally.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which types of aircraft's noise levels produced by NATO allied air forces which are common users of the United Kingdom's low-flying system, will be included in the forthcoming noise survey to be conducted by his Department.

  Mr. Neubert
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 July 1990, c. 643]The noise measurement trial conducted at the Royal Aerospace West Freugh range last month covered the following common users of the United Kingdom low-flying system: F-111, Hawk, Harrier GR5, Jaguar and Tornado.

ENVIRONMENT

  Corvids
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to alter the law relating to the use of live decoys in traps for the purpose of taking corvids; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have no plans to make any changes to existing legislation on this matter.

  Radiation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he became aware for the first time that inspectors from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution were conducting a radiological survey of Rainham marshes.

  Mr. Trippier
  Following publicity over claims that higher than normal background levels of radiation were present at Rainham marshes officials from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution first visited the area on 3 April.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require the fitting of water meters to be carried out free of charge to householders, where the decision to fit has been taken by a water supplier; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Charging for water services is a matter for each water company and like any other business they must cover their costs. Where water companies require water meters to be installed in new properties as a condition of supply, the cost of installation is borne by the developer. Water companies that opt for widespread matering of existing domestic properties will meet the initial costs of installation. They will be able to recover these costs through charges to customers as a whole by applying to the Director General of Water Services for an interim adjustment of their limit on charges increases. The director general will ensure that charges are fair and reasonable and do not show undue preference to, or undue discrimination against, any class of customer. Compulsory metering will be one of the issues dealt with in a consultation paper on methods of charging for water services that the director general will be issuing later this year.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources are available in the current year to the National Rivers Authority for managing and protecting the water environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am pleased to announce that, subject to any necessary parliamentary approval, an extra £11 million will be made available to the National Rivers Authority this financial year, if required. This is additional to the £93 million grant in aid already agreed. This decision will enable the authority to continue its planned capital restructuring programme and to carry out the full range of its pollution control and other functions, in line with the Government's commitment to maintaining the quality of the water environment.

  Recycling
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total indentifiable expenditure on research into recycling by his Department in each year since 1979; and what proportion was expended in each year into the investigation of the capabilities of new technology.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Waste
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make public the conclusions of the consultation on his Department's draft code of practice for waste holders under the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: I hope to make an announcement about the outcome of our consultations on the draft code of practice for the duty of care before the summer recess.

  North Sea Pollution
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on whether the proposals for reducing pollution in the North sea include a sufficient reduction in heavy metal deposits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: I receive regular representations on the marine environment but these have not focused in particular on reduction of pollution by heavy metals. The second North sea conference agreed on a precautionary basis a target of 50 per cent. reductions 1985–95 in inputs via rivers and estuaries for the most dangerous substances, and the recent third conference in the Hague raised this target to 70 per cent. for four substances including mercury, cadmium and lead. The United Kingdom has since 1985 already achieved reductions of 31 per cent. and 22 per cent. discharges to the North sea of mercury and cadmium and these initiatives will help to achieve measurable improvements in North sea water quality.

  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many compulsory purchase orders have been confirmed by his Department, broken down by local authority, in each of the last three financial years;

  (2) how many applications for compulsory purchase orders he has received from local authorities in England and Wales, broken down by local authority, in each of the last three financial years;

  (3) how many compulsory purchase orders in each of the last three financial years were subject to public local inquiry from local authorities in England and Wales, broken down by local authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: Comprehensive data in the form requested are not available except at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for compulsory purchase orders he received in each of the last three financial years were in respect of(a) unfit housing which was occupied, (b) empty private sector properties and (c) poor management of privately rented property.
  194
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: The main compulsory purchase powers for unfit housing are contained in part IX of the Housing Act 1985 and the main powers for other housing in parts II and VIII. The numbers of orders received for confirmation in the last three financial years were:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Part IX

  151

  112

  93

  Parts II, VIII

  187

  187

  111

  Orders are considered on their merits and statistics on the occupancy and management of properties are not kept.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. O?Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has any plans to seek to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 with respect to the standard community charge, in addition to the proposed changes for holiday caravans; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he intends to change the law of joint and several liability under the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement shortly about the community charge.

  CFCs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the impact upon the environment of the leak of chlorofluorocarbons from Harwell atomic research centre.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 9 July 1990]: I understand that about 1 cu m of CFC113 was released when a new cooling system was being commissioned at the JET laboratory at Culham, some of which was subsequently recovered. I regret any avoidable release of ozone-depleting chemicals, but the quantity involved is not significant compared with current levels of CFC consumption.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Pension Age Difference: Barber Judgment
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have completed consideration of the European Court judgment of 17th May 1990 in the case of Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange Group on the issue of payment of redundancy benefits (including pensions) on an equal basis to both sexes; and what proposals they have for the implementation of the judgment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I said on the Third Reading of the Social Security Bill. We are still considering the implications of a judgment that is unclear. I should also emphasise that individual schemes should seek their own legal advice on each scheme's individual circumstances.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He must be aware that although governments come and governments go, that kind of reply goes on for ever. Does he agree that the Barber judgment makes a very important difference in so far as there is a relationship between occupational pension schemes and the state scheme? Will he accept that because of that relationship, it is now becoming more urgent and certainly more imperative that the Government should announce their plans to equalise the ages in the state pension scheme so that employers and the managers and trustees of occupational schemes can begin to plan the future of the schemes in the light of that judgment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that I can go further. I do not accept that it is necessary for the Government to rush into precipitous decisions on equalisation in the state pension scheme. I shall continue to say as regards the particular judgment that we await legal advice and will again consider the matter when we have obtained it. Until then I can recommend only that individual schemes and their trustees should seek their own legal advice.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which is very similar to the response that he made to the discussion on the Social Security Bill. Has he no further information for us on bridging pensions, an issue which it has become necessary to raise only because of a recent European directive and because we have unequal pension ages in this country? Can he give us any further information about that matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot. The problem is one for clarification. The Government are unable to clarify the European Court's judgment.
112
It is up to the court itself to clarify that judgment, and the means by which we can find a way of going to the court to clarify the judgment are necessarily limited.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the judgment emphasises the need to come to a decision about the state pension age? At one stage it looked as though the Government were in favour of a decade of retirement, but we have heard no more of that. Does he further agree that the change, when it comes, will be bound to take some years before it is fully implemented and that it is very frustrating and difficult not even to know what the starting point will be?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I answered that point when I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I do not believe that we should be rushed into precipitous decisions on equalising the state pension scheme as a result of the court judgment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, no one could say that the decision will be precipitous.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my Question. I pointed out the relationship between occupational schemes and the state scheme. It is a definite relationship. To a large extent occupational schemes depend on the state scheme and since they will now—certainly yesterday's Question Time pointed in this direction—have to implement the Barber judgment, does he not feel that they are entitled to have a lead from the Government on what to do about the other part of the pension, namely, the state scheme? It is not a question of rushing into anything or asking employers to obtain their own legal advice. The occupational schemes can get legal advice on the Barber judgment. But is the Minister not aware that what they want is advice from the Government on the state scheme?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept the link, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. But I do not believe that the Government can rush in. We have to clarify what the European Court means before we can make a decision.

Community Health Councils
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for the future membership and role of community health councils.
Lord Henley: My Lords, membership of community health councils will remain as it is now. Their role will remain fundamentally unchanged. District health authorities will be expected to take careful account of the views of their resident population on the overall pattern of service which they plan to secure, and community health councils will play an important role in that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. But is he aware that because there have been so many changes recently to the

113
National Health Service the consumer organisations feel that it is very important that they should know exactly how the patients will be represented?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in writing to the Select Committee in response to its eighth report of 1989, has already made clear that he sees no change in the fundamental role of community health councils. The White Paper proposals that are now being taken into the Act do not add to the CHC's duties or burdens, but obviously the role will have to be clarified to cater for the change in the function of the districts from providers to purchasers of services.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware how grateful I am to him for having clarified the fact that there will need to be a change in the role of community health councils? Does he accept that, under the new style of commercial management of the health authorities, it is even more important that the views of the consumers of health services should be fully understood and taken into consideration? In answer to the noble Baroness he stated that there will be some change. Is it not time that that change was known to the community health councils and to the many voluntary organisations which look to and have members on the community health councils?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord took me slightly further than I meant to go. I was not clarifying how their role would change. I said that the fundamental role of CHCs will remain the same as it is now. However, because of the change in function of the districts, that role will have to be clarified. I can say at this stage only that guidance will be issued in due course on clarification of that role.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, when is "in due course"? The community health councils and the voluntary organisations are intensely interested in the health service. They wish to know what the future holds for them.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give a date. I can assure the noble Lord that it will be soon.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, will the Minister clarify the other part of the Question about future membership? He made some oblique reference to it. However, if the Government consider it an important body, I should have thought that its membership is of vital importance.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear in my original Answer, we have no plans for changing the membership of community health councils. The membership will remain as it is at the moment; that is, one half appointed by local authorities, a third by local voluntary organisations and a sixth by the regional health authority.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, while I am delighted at the news that the noble Lord has given, is he aware that it is vitally important that the views of the community health councils should be regarded by regional and other authorities with greater care than they sometimes are at present?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord says. It is for the district health authorities to take note of the views of the community health councils. That is the role of the community health councils.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us have experience of the ways in which community health councils operate vis-à-vis district health authorities? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will well remember one instance that I call to mind. A community health council said, "This hospital will not close, and we shall do all we can in that respect." However, the district health authority plus the Minister of the day said that it would close, and it did. That does not make the community health council very important.
Lord Henley: My Lords, of course those councils are important. Just because one body gives its view of how matters should develop does not mean that the district authority and the Minister should follow what it says.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the community health councils will have a role? A great many people fear—and the reply from the Minister and the delay involved will do nothing to alleviate that fear—that those councils have been given no role and nor will they be given a role. They fear that no criteria will be laid down, and that eventually they will be chopped off. The real fear is that they will be dispensed with altogether because no role is laid down for them.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that at the Dispatch Box I was giving an assurance that the fundamental role of the CHCs would remain as it is now.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what happens if a hospital trust gets into difficulty? What will then be the role of the community health council?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the community health council is there to advise and to make recommendations to the districts. As the noble Baroness will know, in Community Health Councils (Amendment) Regulations which were laid at the beginning of this month and which come into force on 27th July, the role of community health councils will be expanded to inspect premises of both the regions and National Health Service trusts. As I have stated, the fundamental role of the CHCs will remain. In those circumstances, obviously the regions will consult the CHCs on the formation of a NHS trust. In the very unlikely eventuality of the closure of a NHS trust, again they would be consulted.

Postal Charges: Increases
2.48 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they were consulted by the Post Office before the announcement of the forthcoming increase in postal charges and, if so, what view they expressed.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, Ministers have no formal locus in the setting of letter tariffs which are a matter for the Post Office after consultation with the Post Office Users' National Council.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that that does not answer the question as to whether or not the Government were consulted? It also does not answer the question as to the view of the Government on an increase in prices, which many of us believe is likely to produce a substantial inflationary effect.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the formal responsibility for considering and commenting on those matters rests with the Post Office Users' National Council. The Government keep in informal touch with the Post Office, not least because of the need to ensure that the Post Office meets the financial objectives set for it.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, does the Minister consider it likely that we shall ever again attain the situation of past years? If someone posted a letter and the recipient denied receiving it, he was not believed. Today one is absolutely surprised if one receives a letter posted first class the day after it is posted.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not claim that the Post Office service is as good as it should be. Equally, I do not think that it is as bad as some people suggest. There have been some important improvements in recent times which I very much welcome.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, in the report of the Post Office Users' National Council published this month, mention is made of agreed service improvements. Is the Minister also aware that on the same page of the report the council says that those agreed service improvements are not now to be put into effect although the money was found for them in the 1988 tariff increase?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said earlier, it is indeed the case that the postal service is not yet as good as it should be and not all of the improvements that the Post Office management is seeking have yet been implemented. However, I am happy to say that Sunday collections have been implemented in the place where my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter lives.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if money was given to the Post Office to carry out improvements which have not been carried out and the Government have agreed to further increases, why should the money not be spent on the improvements which have already been agreed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Baroness fully understands the situation. The Post Office is not given money for those purposes. It has to earn it. The earnings relate to costs as well as to other new expenditure which many people, including myself, would regard as desirable.
Lord Alport: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, in view of the decline in the value of money between 1840 and 1990, the price of the letter post at the moment is more or less than it was 150 years ago
116
when the penny post was established? If my noble friend does not have the answer at his fingertips will he let me know?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall be very happy to let my noble friend have that information if I can find it. However, during the five-year period between March '85–1985, that is—and March 1990 letter prices rose by 11 per cent. less than inflation. I understand that the Post Office estimates that if the proposed rises are implemented as planned in September prices will have risen by 7 per cent. less than inflation in the last five years.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, how can the Minister disclaim all government responsibility? Did the Government not set a financial figure for the Post Office, leaving it to the Post Office to decide how to meet that figure?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I said in answer to an earlier question that the Government set financial objectives for the Post Office. Of course, we keep in close touch with the Post Office management to ensure that those objectives are being met.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has not answered the Question put by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter? Apart from those informal contacts and ensuring that financial objectives are met, were the Government consulted about this particular rise in charges and, if so, what attitude did they take? Will the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government have been consulted about the proposal of the chief executive of the Royal Mail, reported in the press, to study the question of early delivery and possibly to eliminate it? If that is on the agenda will we have an opportunity to debate it in this House before any decision is taken?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to any question as to whether the Government have been formally consulted about a matter which is the responsibility of the Post Office authorities is, no.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister answer the second part of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as to what view the Government have expressed? What is the Government's view on the increase in postal charges? Can we have an answer?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry if my earlier replies were not as clear as the noble Lord would have wished. The Government have no duty to comment formally on these matters and have not done so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in connection with my noble friend's answer to my earlier supplementary question in respect of Sunday collections in the area where I live, is he aware that last Saturday I visited my local post-box and saw plainly on it a notice stating that the next collection would be on Monday? How does he reconcile that with his answer?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, when Sunday collections were resumed in the area in which my noble friend lives, and in many other areas, they were not resumed from every post-box in the area but only from selected post-boxes. I shall be very happy to let

117
my noble friend know the boxes in which he should post his letters on a Sunday if he wants them to be collected.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does the Minister recall that some time ago I had reason to praise the Post Office's services? However, is he aware that since the price has increased the standard has gone down, and for the last three weeks the Whip has not been delivered to my house until late on a Friday whereas most noble Lords receive it first thing in the morning?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am very sorry to hear that the noble Lord has not received his Whip in as timely a way as he ought to. I hope that that is not because his Chief Whip posted it late.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, might it not be possible to reduce or at least peg the price of ordinary letters by increasing the price for delivering junk mail which I believe costs less than ordinary post?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a matter on which I was questioned the other day. Junk mail, as my noble friend describes it, is posted in accordance with tariffs agreed by negotiation between the customer and the Post Office and is not carried at a rate which would subsidise other services.

Roads: Private Investment
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to encourage private investors to build lanes beside existing motorways for the exclusive use of heavy goods vehicles.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government are encouraging the private sector to come forward with new road-building proposals. It is for them to judge what sort of roads would be financially viable. Lanes reserved for heavy goods vehicles might well be a possibility.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply, particularly the last few words because the scheme is just as imaginative as it was when first mooted. When the Government have come to a decision, will they ensure that parliamentary procedures are adopted that will require a Bill so that the proposal can be examined? Is the noble Viscount aware that most people, I believe, thoroughly agree with the idea?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the question was raised in the consultation paper published last year called New Roads by New Means. Paragraph 39 of the document referred to the possibility of the Secretary of State making adaptation by order, where safety was not compromised, to meet the needs of the operators' business; for example, by restricting the use of roads to particular classes of vehicle.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the Minister think that this suggestion will go the same way as road pricing, which was officially buried by the Secretary of State for Transport in another place yesterday? Does the noble Viscount agree that there
118
appears to be some confusion over the matter? The Prime Minister said at the Tory ladies' conference that it would form part of the manifesto whereupon Downing Street said that she was thinking aloud, while Conservative Central Office said that it was not a Conservative Party initiative so far as it was aware and that the Prime Minister was speaking off the top of her head?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I always listen to my right honourable friend with rapt attention. Other than that, I cannot make any further comment.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, can we have an assurance from the noble Viscount that in the case of roads promoted by private money there will be no relaxation of the rules or the cumbersome public inquiry system that exists for public roads unless, as I would wish, he abolishes the latter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is outside the scope of the Question. However, I shall write to the noble Lord with a view on the matter.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, are we to understand from earlier answers given by the noble Viscount on this Question that the Government could be considering designating routes for heavy vehicles, coaches and other large vehicles in congested areas?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we have not reached that stage yet.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Viscount's rapt attention is not enough. Is it not the case that the proposal was made with the full authority of the Prime Minister of this country? Is he aware that the Road Haulage Association said that the proposal was mind-boggling? Who is travelling in the right lane, the Prime Minister or the association?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Prime Minister, of course.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Employment Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 will be taken.

Employment Bill
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Chairman of Committees in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("union") insert ("or a professional association").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the extension of Clause 1 to professional associations. As the Committee will know, the purpose of Clause 1 is to establish a situation in which refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership is to be protected in future.
In the amendment we are saying that that degree of protection imposed in the clause should be extended to cover professional associations. Those Members of the Committee who have listened to debates in the past will know that this matter was raised in another place by the honourable Member for Sedgefield along the following lines; namely, that professional associations practise pre-entry closed shops in much the same way as trade unions. For the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the other accountant associations, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and others, prior membership is a ticket to employment. Those bodies represent what Carr Saunders in his study of professional associations called the registered professions which enjoy a state regulated monopoly.
We know also that the right to perform certain categories of work are quite clearly related, specified and limited to members of those associations. The right to act as auditors of accounts in limited companies is confined to members of the accountant associations. The right to perform operations and issue certificates in a wide range of areas is related and restricted to, for example, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
It has never been said, and we are not saying, that all professional associations operate closed shops. Although it examines, qualifies, disciplines and expels, the Law Society does not operate a closed shop. It is possible to continue to practise as a solicitor without being a member of the Law Society. The British Medical Association does not practise a closed shop. It participates in the examination and discipline of doctors through its membership of the General Medical Council but you can continue to be a doctor without being a member of the BMA.
Nevertheless, the issue of professional associations and membership requirements is not confined to a limited number of registered professions where it is prescribed by statute. As Carr Saunders in his classic study of professional associations clearly demonstrated, most professional associations—indeed, one might say, almost all professional associations—would like to have, the name and title of their association established as the entry to the profession. For example, osteopaths, chiropractors, house agents, brewers, public relations consultants and clerks of works are all non-registered professional associations which, says Carr Saunders, are aiming, in a sense, at making their professional title in substance the entry to the job.
Indeed, those who have succeeded in doing that—and a number have succeeded in gaining that
120
recognition—can have the name, title and membership of their association protected by injunction. They can prevent people from continuing to call themselves by titles which would give the impression that they are members of an association when in fact they are not. Therefore, we are asking the Committee why that should not be the case for professional associations as it is in the future to be the case for trade unions.
It was said in another place by Mr. Eggar, at col. 14 of the Official Report of Standing Committee D on 18th February, that as regards the statutory registered professions Parliament or the House had:
"decided that the way to provide a level of competence and qualification in certain important professions was to ensure that an employee was a member of a professional association. For that reason, the Bill is not an appropriate means for regulating access to the professions".
The problem with that is that if that is what the House decided at some time in the past, that in itself is not a reason for Parliament changing its mind. After all, if it is not necessary for the Law Society or the British Medical Association to operate, in effect, a pre-entry closed shop, why is it necessary for architects, vets and Inns of Court?
If it is right for the registered professions to operate that because they are statutorily regulated in that way, what about the unregistered professions? The Government may argue—to some extent the Minister of State in another place argued—that professional associations are so concerned with standards and the preservation of standards in those professions that it is not fair to compare them with trade unions. However, the same Minister admitted under pressure that the professional associations also practise regulation of their trade or profession. Many of those professions, as a matter of regular custom, prevent, regulate or restrict price competition. Architects do not allow certain types of price competition. Accountants regulate price competition. Surveyors exchange lists of prices. Indeed, most professional associations, for part of their time and as part of their function, are regulating competition. It is true that they say that is done not merely in the interests of their members but also in the interests of society at large.
What is the difference between that situation and the situation of a craft union or a union like Equity or the Shipping Federation? Until it became unlawful, there was a joint pre-entry closed shop arrangement with the National Union of Seamen. It was successfully argued by both those parties before a previous Conservative Government that they were as much concerned with the quality of the labour force as anything else.
We are saying today that there is no clear distinction between professional associations and trade unions. We are saying that if you look at, for example, the European social charter, the right of association to constitute organisations includes both professional organisations and trade unions. The protection in the social charter of the right to belong or not to belong runs across the board to both professional associations and trade unions. Only in

121
this Bill is there an attempt to make a distinction. This amendment seeks to put an end to that distinction. I beg to move.
Viscount Caldecote: This is a most extraordinary amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, talked a lot about chartered accountants and other people of whom I do not have much knowledge. He did not mention chartered engineers. A chartered engineer has a high qualification. It is up to the employer, if he wants to, to specify (as he should do in certain circumstances) that a job is open only to a chartered engineer because he wishes to be sure that the person whom he is appointing to that job has certain qualifications which are denoted by the qualification of chartered engineer.
If he wishes to appoint another engineer who is not a chartered engineer, he is free to do so. There is no restriction upon him. A few categories of job must be performed by a qualified chartered engineer where safety of life is at risk. However, by and large the qualifications required are determined by the employer, and if he wishes to stipulate that he wants a chartered engineer who is a member of a professional institution it is right that he should do so.
The noble Lord complained that the description of some professional people was inappropriate. That is also absolute rubbish. It is important that people should be properly described and so understood. I know of one case where a ship capsized and life was lost because the person involved in certain changes in the design who purported to be a qualified naval architect and qualified engineer was in fact a BBC scene designer. As a result the ship was not in a fit state to go to sea.
The proposal that all professional institutions should be included in the clause is absolute rubbish. I hope the Committee will not accept the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: The amendment concerns a salient feature of the whole concept of industrial relations. One of the most significant aspects of industrial relations is the concept of fairness. A major reason for the breakdown of industrial relations is perceived unfairness.
The amendment attempts to project a sense of fairness into the Bill. At the moment the legislation applies only to one group of associations—trade unions. The perception of people who work in industry and commerce will be that trade unions are being singled out unfairly from other professional associations or groups of workers. That is an unfortunate impression to give.
I ask the Committee to consider the amendment carefully and to support it on the basis that we are effectively ensuring that fairness applies across the spectrum of associations, combinations and groups of people who work.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: This is an extraordinary amendment, as was pointed out by my noble friend. Even more extraordinary is the argument to which the Committee has just had the privilege of listening. The noble Lord is saying that in the interests of fairness
122
two different organisations with different functions should be treated the same. With due respect, that has only to be restated to be seen as complete and absolute nonsense.
The difference is perfectly plain. Professional associations, as the name indicates, are associations of people with certain special qualifications; qualifications which those who employ them wish to know that they possess. The general character of a trade union is not like that at all. It is possible, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has shown, to pick out one or two craft unions which are beamed a little towards certain skills. I have yet to hear that they establish examinations and test the skills of people before they allow them to join. On the contrary, one's experience is that trade unions, with their falling membership—membership over the past few years has been steadily falling—are anxious to recruit as many people as they can regardless of qualifications.
If there is no better argument against the provisions of the Bill and in particular of this clause than that one should treat organisations based upon specific professional skills in exactly the same way as organisations that are not so based, the sooner we pass on to the next amendment the better.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: On this occasion I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The concept of fairness has no application in this case. There are distinctions to be drawn between professional organisations and trade unions, as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said. He instanced the example of chartered engineers.
The amendment would prevent an employer stipulating that a person appointed to a professional position should be a member of the relevant professional organisation. A good example, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, is that of auditors. The Companies Act 1976 provides that no one may act as an auditor unless he is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants or some comparable body. That Act rightly recognises the need to ensure that people who audit accounts in large public companies are suitably qualified. If the amendment were carried it would effectively overturn legislation prescribing that such people should have appropriate levels of competence. I do not believe that that is reasonable. If only for that reason I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to question the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Rochester. They say that there is a fundamental difference between a professional association and a trade union. In analysing whether or not that argument is valid, one should have regard to the fact that the original step of qualification for work was probably created by the trade guilds, the working guilds in which the qualification to do the job was paramount.
The idea of people engaged in a specific occupation forming an association to protect their mutual interests is basically one related to working people. The professional associations, although members gain

123
entry in most cases by qualification and examination, are pronouncing the same proposition. It is good that people who are associated together relate to each other.
Basically, I do not like the clause. However, if we are to have legislation of this type which seeks to regulate who comes in or to deregulate—in other words, a form of government intervention that says what should happen—I think that my noble friend's proposal on the Front Bench that it must be seen to be fair is a sound one.
The argument will be that there is a substantial difference between qualification by examination and qualification by other means. It is not necessarily possible to have examinations as to whether one could act as a shipwright. It would be difficult to do so. Therefore alternative methods have been found such as apprenticeships and so forth. These qualifications arise for very different reasons.
Some occupations, one of which I know well, involve people with qualifications working alongside people without qualifications. How is one to bring together the common interest which these people have? It can only be done on the basis of a mutual obligation to belong to the organisation which represents them. If one is not to have that obligation in one area, then it is obvious that it should not exist in another, where, although the qualification for entry is different, the basic purpose is exactly the same.
Baroness Seear: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but in supporting my noble friend Lord Rochester I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. It would be a pity to accept the argument from the guilds. The guilds, as I think most people remember them, were organisations of employers and, as employers, they had an interest in standards and so were totally different from trade unions.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am surprised that the Committee seems almost to have got into a situation of debating into which class of the social structure people fit, however employed. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord on the Government Benches.
The argument put forward and subscribed to by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is that the professional associations are different from trade unions because they market a special ability. I reject that absolutely. For my pains, or sins, I am a skilled engineer. I started in engineering at 14 or 15 years of age and I learnt my trade on the shop floor. I could go back to it tomorrow if I had to, although probably not as efficiently, and market my knowledge. I consider it insulting for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to classify me as being different from someone who happened to have a professional qualification that is marketed better than mine.
What the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said—supported, to my dismay, by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—means that in a completely free market you can market your abilities, professionalism, or
124
what you have learnt, but a bar shall be drawn between the white collar professions and the blue collar professions. It is absolutely outrageous to make such a suggestion. The blue collar worker who works the lathe, the boring equipment, or is a fitter, bench fitter, shipbuilder or chemical worker may be just as specialised as the members of so-called professional associations.
For example, we know that there can be appalling consequences where mistakes are made by, say, a person working in a chemical plant with a specific job to do. However, noble Lords are saying that there is insufficient protection because, although the person working alongside carries the same qualifications and the same permission to do that job, he is not deemed to be a professional. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, with his love for the trade unions—I listened to the debate he initiated recently—was beyond belief. I believe he was referring to a shipping accident. We all know that there have been appalling accidents in the past few years and that, basically, some of the people held responsible for t hose accidents have not been trade unionists at the bottom end of the scale but people at the top end of the scale.
I need only take noble Lords back two or three years to the disgraceful and appalling events that occurred at King's Cross. The inquiry that was subsequently set up found that the person who was in overall charge at London Regional Transport at the time had some responsibility for what happened. I forget the gentleman's name but that was the finding of the committee of inquiry. That gentleman was not a member of a trade union but I am willing to bet that he was a member of his appropriate professional association. But what did the Government do? He was not subjected to the strictures of a court of law for dereliction of duty; he was moved to one side and given another quango.
It is all very well for Members on the other side of the Committee, supported by the Liberal Benches, accepting that attitude but it does not go down well to the people on the shop floor. I might be out of order in saying this, but we have present in the Chamber today a man who plays an important role in what finally happens in our courts of law. I am referring to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls. I have quoted him in the Chamber on previous occasions, and I shall do so again, as the judge involved in the industrial relations court at the time of the Edward Heath Government. As long ago as that the noble and learned Lord is on record as saying that the law was becoming out of balance in favour of employers and against the trade unions.
The amendments that seek to alter the Bill arise because the Bill is directed against the individual rights of trade unionists and not as corporate bodies. I believe that it is about time the Government stopped what they are seeking to do. As I said earlier, my sadness is that the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches chose to support this squalid exercise.
Lord Hunt: I am neither for nor against the amendment and I hope that my noble friend Lord

125
Rochester will not wrongly conclude that I am speaking in a contrary sense to him. Having listened to the clear distinction which some noble Lords are trying to make between professional associations, on the one hand, and trade unions, on the other, it seems to me that there is no clear distinction to be drawn at all.
The National Association of Probation Officers, of which I am a past president, began as a professional association and then took on the duties of a trade union. At present it is proud to be both a professional association and a trade union, with very good historical cause.
Viscount Caldecote: The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, seemed to be confused in regard to a point that I made. In regard to a shipping accident my argument was that the designer of the modification used initials after his name which gave the impression that he was qualified to design the modifications. In fact he was not qualified to do so and the ship therefore capsized. I drew attention to the importance, in relation to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, of describing people correctly according to their qualifications. I was making no other point.
Perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord whether he was not making an argument that an employer should be able to give a reason for not employing a trade unionist simply because he thought the trade unionist did not have the qualifications that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, obviously has, but could give the reason that he is a trade unionist and does not want to employ him. Surely that is not what the noble Lord wants.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have listened carefully to this debate and I have read the amendment over and over again. It states:
"after ('union') insert ('or a professional association')".
As the argument has proceeded some confusion appears to have arisen as to belonging to a professional association and being professionally qualified. The two are different. It is perfectly possible for an employer to say that he requires a person to be properly and professionally qualified before he gives him a job, but it is not necessary for him to follow that by saying that he must be a member of the relevant professional association.
There are very good reasons why an employer should not be able to say that. If he is able to say that to a person who is a member of a trade union, there are similar prescriptions in relation to a professional association. I feel sure that other Members of the Committee can imagine this situation. I do not want to belabour the point. There may be a chartered engineer with the highest qualifications. But because he has a disagreement with his association he does not wish to continue his membership. It may very well be that the association could put pressure on the employer and say, "This man has resigned from our association because he does not agree with us on a particular point. You should not employ him".
The amendment covers that point. An employer could quite correctly demand for a particular job or
126
set of jobs a given qualification or qualifications. All the arguments which have been adduced from both sides of the Committee against this amendment fall on the basis of what I have just said.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment. I declare that I am a member of a professional union and that I am unable to practise or ply my trade, so to speak, unless I am a member.
The professional association is a curious concept. It is not defined. The amendment seems to be a misguided attempt to broaden the closed shop concept, which the Government are rightly, in my view, trying to narrow.
Clause 1 is wholly concerned with trade union membership or non-membership. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The clause is not in any way concerned with access to the professions. There is some confusion.
Lord Strathclyde: I did not expect for one moment that we should have such an interesting and lively debate on this amendment. Perhaps it will be helpful if I set out precisely what we mean in Clause 1 of the Bill. It seeks to ensure that an individual's union membership or non-membership will have no bearing whatsoever on the availability of job opportunities to him. Subsection (1) of the clause accordingly makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to employ a person on the ground that he is or is not a union member. That is the point that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was trying to make about fairness.
The clause is an entirely even-handed and fair approach for people who are and for people who are not members of a trade union. I also believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, got hold of the wrong end of the stick as regards this amendment and what the clause means. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, the Bill is concerned with union membership and non-membership. It is not about membership of professional associations. It is concerned with the closed shop, which is generally understood as a colloquial term meaning a union membership agreement.
While it is true that individuals who practise at the Bar are required to be members of the General Council of the Bar, that cannot properly be described as a closed shop agreement. Quite clearly, the Bar Council is not a trade union.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may explain that. The Bar Council is not covered by the statutory definition of a trade union contained in Section 28 of the then Labour Government's Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, nor are practising barristers and solicitors workers within the definition laid down by Section 30 of that Act.
As Members of the Committee are aware, there are a number of professions where membership of the relevant association is the established test of professional competence and standards of ethical conduct. This amendment may be inspired by a

127
mistaken belief on the other side of the Committee that entry to the professions is restricted to members of the relevant professional associations. That is not invariably so, though the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, indicated that. It is not necessary to be a member of the Law Society to practise as a solicitor or to be a member of the BMA to practise as a doctor.
But what is the relevance of this to the Bill? It is rarely the case that these professional associations are also trade unions. Where they are, as in the case of the BMA, membership of them will be regarded in the same way as membership of any other trade union for the purposes of the Bill. The Government cannot accept for one moment the Opposition's attempt to suggest that trade unions and professional associations are the same thing. It cannot be sensible to suggest that there is any real comparison between the functions of, say, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Bar Council.
In addition, the Government believe that the amendment would undermine the established procedures for becoming eligible to practise and for maintaining professional standards in the professions. It would also produce some extraordinary results. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for making the Committee aware of that. As he mentioned, under this amendment a firm of accountants would not be allowed to refuse to employ an applicant who is not a member of one of the recognised accountancy bodies, when the relevant statute —passed, I may say, by a Labour Government—requires the auditors of companies and trade unions to be members of those bodies.
Also, most professional associations differ from trade unions in being associations of self-employed individuals. Clause 1 does not relate to the self-employed and is therefore a quite inappropriate vehicle for dealing with such associations. In any event, the Bill is concerned with access to employment and not with the right to practise as a member of a profession. It is abundantly clear that the Bill is not an appropriate means for regulating entry to the professions. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was teasing the Committee with this amendment and I very much hope that he will withdraw it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: As the Minister made no reference to it, does he totally discount the relevance of the remarks made by his noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Caldecote?
Lord Strathclyde: No, I simply believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, misunderstood what my noble friends were saying. Both of them said that this was an extraordinary amendment and I entirely concur with that.
Lord McCarthy: I am not surprised that the Committee has been teased in this way. One should begin by looking at what the amendment says in the context of the Bill. If you are excluded from a job or you cannot get one simply on the ground that you are not a member of a professional association, you get compensation. That is what the amendment says. It is
128
not that the employer should not ask if you are qualified or be prevented from employing fully-qualified people, or that he should employ naval architects who are not naval architects. If a naval architect who is fully qualified and has passed all the examinations but is no longer a member of the professional association is excluded from employment, that individual should be given compensation. That is all the amendment suggests.
As far as I can see, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lords, Lord Rochester, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell of Alloway, have three arguments. Very often they were just arguments by declaration: what a foolish thing to say and what a ridiculous suggestion; how presumptuous and what cheek; what I say three times is true. Those are not arguments.
We move on to the second argument, which is that professional associations are different. I did not say that they were the same as trade unions. They are entirely, completely and absolutely different; that must be the argument. They focus on quality and examinations; they never attempt to restrict competition; the professional associations do not regulate in the interests of their members. I suggest that the Committee knows that that is not so. Ministers in another place have accepted that that is not so. Therefore, as Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber have said, there are similarities between professional associations and trade unions.
The third argument is that this way—the way that it is done with the Bar Council and the way that it is done with veterinaries—is the only way to observe standards. But once again, if the Committee thinks about it, it is not the only way. It is not the way that we do it with doctors. Goodness knows, they have to be qualified, they have to be examined and they can be disciplined; but they do not have to be members of the BMA. It is not the way that we do it with lawyers. It is the way that we do it with half the legal profession but not the other half. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor proposes in some way to modify the monopoly of barristers. There are other ways of doing it. If there are other ways of doing it, why should we not in fact say that this amendment should cover professional associations?
There is a defendable position and I offer it to the Minister. If he were to say, "Yes, we know that professional associations regulate entry and training; we know that they are there just as much as the AEU or the TGWU to look after the interests of their members, but that is not the only thing they do; we will accept an amendment giving protection if it can be shown that the object of a rule of an association is the protection of quality, examinations or standards, but anything to do with training interests and the removal of competition should be against the law", he would have a defendable position. If he said that that should apply to trade unions he would have a very defendable position. But that is not what the Government say and that is certainly not what the Minister says.

129
The Minister has rather different arguments. He says to me, "It is all right. There is nothing wrong with this. It is fair to trade unionists and it is also fair to non-unionists, so why are you putting down an amendment?" I have done so because it is not fair to members of professional associations and nonmembers of professional associations. It discriminates against people who want to drop out or do not want to join professional associations. That is the sense in which it is not fair.
The Minister also says to me that this is a Bill about trade unions. We have had this argument over and over again. The noble Lord knows very well that we trot along to the authorities upstairs to put down amendments. We are given a wonderful stopper. We are told that what we propose is outside the Long Title of the Bill. We are told that we cannot talk about something because it is not the aim, intention and objective of the Bill. We are told that it is not in the Long Title. But we have not been told that this time. We have not been told that to put down an amendment on professional associations is outside the Long Title of the Bill. There is therefore no reason in parliamentary terms why we should not have this amendment.
Finally, the Minister gives me what I suppose logicians would call some kind of excluded middle. He says, first, that closed shops are what unions do; secondly, that the Bar Council is not a trade union; and, thirdly, that therefore the Bar Council's closed shop is not a closed shop. He can do better than that.
On Question, amendment negatived.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert:
("(b) because he has engaged in normal trade union activities; or").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should first like to make it plain that I fully support the Government's decision to bring the pre-entry closed shop to an end. My party's opposition to it is of long standing and we were in advance of the Government in proposing that it should be outlawed. Equally, I applaud the Government's decision to make it as unlawful for someone to be denied employment because he is a trade union member as because he is not. The Government have reached that conclusion late in the day but it is nonetheless welcome as far as it goes.
I put it like that because in my view a person should be denied employment no more because in a previous employment he has engaged responsibly in trade union activities than because he is a union member. The aim of this amendment is to include that principle in the Bill.
Clearly, there is a difficulty in defining the nature of activities that should be acceptable for this purpose. "Responsible", "reasonable" and "legitimate" are words that come to mind. I have chosen the word "normal" best to describe what I have in view. In using that word I readily acknowledge that an employer has
130
every right to refuse employment to, shall we say, a "Red Robbo" who has a record of causing disruption in a previous employment. But I do not see why someone should be denied a job simply because as a responsible citizen he has engaged in ordinary trade union activities as a union member or union representative.
Section 58(1) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 makes it plain that dismissal from employment is unfair if it occurs because an employee has taken part in union activities. But there is no corresponding safeguard in relation to recruitment. The amendment seeks to make good that omission. If someone who is currently in employment cannot be dismissed because of his trade union activities, should it not be equally unlawful to discriminate against him as a potential recruit because of his previous union activities? Why should it be possible for an employer to say to someone, "I don't mind your being a union member but I don't want to employ you because you have been an active trade unionist"?
The Minister will no doubt say that a person who has a complaint on those grounds can take his case to an industrial tribunal. But the Bill does not say so. Why should not a further ground be added to those in subsection (5) of Clause 1 of the Bill to the effect that it is unlawful to refuse employment to a person because he has engaged in normal trade union activities? It may well be said that there are problems associated with the use of the word "normal" to define the activities which should be acceptable to a prospective employer. It may also be said that I have not gone the right way about incorporating what I have in mind into the Bill. I readily accept that there may be drafting deficiencies in the amendment. But the principle underlying it must be clear enough. I suggest that at this stage it is the principle with which the Committee should be concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: On behalf of this Bench I rise to support the amendment. It is very similar to an amendment put down by the Opposition. I prefer our wording but the noble Lord's amendment is first before the Committee.
The Bill as it stands contains the right to belong or not to belong to a trade union. But belonging is simply a passive state. Unions, generally speaking, want their members to be as participative as possible. I cannot emphasise enough, though Members of the Committee on the Government Benches may not agree, that unions are democratic organisations. To be effective, democracy needs active participation. It should not be possible to debar from employment someone who has been active in a trade union with a previous employer. If the amendment were accepted that would be impossible.
I need hardly say that the right to belong to a union is enshrined in Article 2 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise of the ILO, Convention 87. It states:

131
"Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall halve the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation".
However, Article 11 goes further and says that each member country of the ILO, in this case the United Kingdom,
"undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organise".
Clearly, one cannot exercise the right to organise without indulging in some activity. Meetings have to be called, local leaderships established, and so on. Many good employers recognise this fact. They understand that it is in their interests that any employee organisation which they organise should be as representative as possible. Such employers will often provide facilities for meetings and will encourage able employees to become representatives. Some of them, even if they do not make facilities available during working hours, will certainly do so immediately afterwards so that as many people as possible can attend meetings on the firm's premises. Many such employers recognise the value of active trade unionists in their employ also being active in the wider organisation of the union outside the workplace and will assist those who wish to stand for election or attend annual policy-making conferences.
The amendment does not ask for such facilities. However, it spells out that it is not just a question of belonging; there is also a right to engage in normal trade union activities. I hope that the Government will agree with that assertion and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that he is prepared to accept what is proposed in principle, even if he does not care for the present wording.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to express my support for this amendment I should like to make two points. The first is consequent upon the speech made by the mover of the amendment during which he referred to the activities of a particular individual in the trade union movement and said that that sort of activity was not normal. He led us to believe that such activities could be used as an excuse for blacklisting a person. In my view that statement needs to be rebutted. I should like to elaborate a little on that aspect of the matter.
The second point that I wish to make may come as a surprise to Members of the Committee on the opposite side of the Chamber. Normal trade union activity—and by that I mean active trade union activity rather than inactivity—can actually be a spur to improvements in management. To start with, the individual referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—namely, "Red Robbo", though I prefer to refer to him as Derek Robinson—was the senior trade union convener of the British Leyland Motor Corporation or British Leyland (I cannot remember which title is the correct one) at the time in question. The company was faced with a change in direction. Up until that time it was always assumed that British Leyland wanted to be involved in the mass production of motor cars and that it wanted to be a significant
132
mass producer of motor cars. Every activity of the management, of the union and of the British Government was aimed at that endeavour.
However, a change in direction was called for by Michael Edwardes, or "Mick the Knife". The proposed change was to cut the production capacity of British Leyland to below 1 million motor cars a year. It was accepted by academics, by leading professionals in the motor industry and, following studies, by the trade unions that there was no future as an independent manufacturer for any mass producer of motor cars whose production fell below 1 million a year. Therefore, the decisions being made by management—admittedly with the backing of the Government—to reduce the production capacity of British Leyland to below 1 million motor cars per year were effectively signing the death warrant of that manufacturer as an independent producer.
Derek Robinson happened to be the union leader who projected that argument. He received support from the workers in the company. They supported him enough in his argument to go on strike. Because there was a major change taking place in that organisation which was backed by the Government, some mechanism had to be found to contain the opposition, if I may put it that way. That mechanism was the leadership of his trade union repudiating him. In my view it was a very unfortunate action to take at the time. I also think that it is most unfortunate that the truth did not emerge at the time and that the British public was not able to make a realistic judgment on the matter. I say that because not only did the leadership of his union repudiate him but he was also vilified in the public press and by the media.
However, that happened some years ago. It is interesting to note that we now have a situation where the arguments which Derek Robinson put forward as the truth for the future of British Leyland have been fully realised. Because of the reduction in production capacity, British Leyland ceased to be a mass producer of motor cars on the world stage. It has lost its independence. Indeed, it could not exist on its own. It has been carved up by successive governments and is now part of another company. It has almost lost its identity. The fact that it is now virtually half Japanese is neither here nor there.
The point that I am trying to make is this. An action that can be construed as normal trade union activity in the context in which it is engaged in should never be used in the future as an excuse for blacklisting and not employing the person concerned. I say that because circumstances change. What I have said is especially true if the person is right. It is a terrible reflection upon our society if we say that people who are right but who were presumed wrong at the time of the event should have their apparent sins follow them for the rest of their working life.
In conclusion, I shall change the argument slightly. I should like to say a few words about how normal, active trade unionism can actually improve management practice. A few years ago, I heard the story of how an active regional official of a trade union in the engineering industry set about promoting trade union

133
training schemes; that is, the training of shop stewards and branch secretaries. He was very successful in organising these training courses.
The effect of his endeavours was that the people involved in trade union activity improved considerably. They became better debaters and better counsels for their members as regards disputes with employers. They were winning the arguments against their opposite numbers—the line managers or the personnel managers. The result was that companies also had to engage in extra training. The training was not just in respect of how to counter the arguments of the trade unions; it was in terms of good personnel and management practice. The companies involved improved their managerial functions as a direct result of normal trade union activity. It is wrong to think of trade union activity as being negative.
I have two reasons for speaking today on some of these subjects. The first is that I want to ensure that we look at the whole subject from the point of view of projecting fairness; and the other is to ensure that we recognise the immense importance and the practical benefits to our society which come from encouraging good trade union practice.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I oppose Amendment No. 2, although I understand what he is driving at. Clause 1(1) (a) is wholly clear, explicit and sufficient to carry the principle of the Bill for all practical purposes. The effect of the proposed addition would only be confusion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that one should not have a negative attitude to trade unions or their activities. I do not have a negative attitude; but I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rochester: what is the difference between normal and abnormal trade union activity? There is no definition anywhere.
One can argue about that issue in a court of law with expert witnesses from the trade unions as to what is normal and what is abnormal. It is wholly impractical. That is the point that I seek to make.
The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 9. As a result one has, with respect to the noble Baroness, another type of confusion and impracticability. Again, the amendment as drafted is not workable. One has to take into account that it is unlawful to refuse to employ a person because he has taken lawful activities or proposes to take them. Let us pause for a moment and consider the type of evidence that is needed to enable an industrial tribunal to resolve the issue. It is a theoretical issue.
If the amendment is put to a Division, I urge the Committee not to accept it. It is right to speak to both amendments, with respect, because they are grouped, but one is bad in one way and the other is bad in another way. They are both impracticable and unworkable and would import untold confusion.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: If the amendment is pressed to a Division I shall support it because of its intention. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I am opposed to
134
the idea of the closed shop. As a member of the British Railways Board I recall that we had one or two railwaymen who refused to join a union and contributed their dues to charity. When operating a closed shop, there is frequently a conspiracy between the union and the employer. The employer often says, "Don't let us have any trouble because two or three people have a sensitive conscience. Therefore let us impose the closed shop and thereby avoid any industrial dispute".
The men involved were sacked and took British Rail, whose chairman presently sits on the Cross-Benches, to the European Court to protect their position. We are not discussing the closed shop. We are discussing the ability of people to exercise their trade union rights. The trouble, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, lies in defining what is normal. He said that Mr. Robinson's activities were normal trade union activities. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said that he would not regard Mr. Robinson's activities as normal trade union activities. That is the difficulty.
If some form of words can be found to overcome that difficulty, I shall be happy. At the moment there is a conspiracy in some quarters to blacklist people who have good trade union records. I was interested to read that the other place is now examining the activities of the Economic League. Employers subscribe to the Economic League, which in return will give them lists of people who should not be employed because they have been militant trade unionists or are suspected of having been militant trade unionists. That is an abuse of power which must be stopped. If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, can help us avoid that abuse of power, I shall support it.
Lord Strathclyde: Clause 1 seeks to ensure that an individual's ability to obtain a job will not be affected by whether or not he is a member of a trade union. That is an important new protection for job applicants—I emphasise that—and it is entirely even-handed since it will make the pre-entry closed shop unenforceable while at the same time providing protection for union members.
At present an employer can lawfully refuse to employ a job applicant merely because he is or is not a trade union member. The Bill will make that unlawful; it will be a genuinely even-handed extension of individual employment rights, protecting union members and non-members alike against discrimination in recruitment. It will mean, for example, that job applicants will be free to belong to a trade union and enjoy certain valuable benefits and services to which membership may entitle them, such as legal, financial, training and pensions services; but equally those who do not wish to belong to a trade union will not suffer discrimination in recruitment because of that. We hope that Members on all sides of the Committee will welcome such an important extension of employment protection. That right has not existed before.
Perhaps I may deal with the amendments. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, seeks to make it unlawful to refuse to

135
employ an individual on the grounds of normal trade union activities which he has undertaken in previous employment. We need to be clear that Clause 1 deals with the problem where the possibility of getting a job depends upon the status as a member or non-member of a trade union of the individual who is applying for it.
It is quite another thing to deal with the particular activities of an individual, whether inside or outside a trade union. The Government do not accept that that is a valid comparison. We are not concerned with the conduct of individuals and Clause 1 is not about the trade union organisation and representation in the employer's workplace.
The noble Lord has sought to argue that the amendment is framed so as to apply only to normal trade union activities. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out, what is normal in any particular context is liable to be a matter of considerable uncertainty and debate in another context.
I can assure the Committee that in the Government's view, the Bill as drafted will protect a job applicant who has engaged in activities that are no more than an ordinary and basic part of being a member of a trade union. That compares quite favourably with the noble Lord's word "normal". I hope that it will also satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.
The fact is that, whatever the circumstances, anyone who thinks he has been refused employment because he is a member of a trade union will be able to complain to a tribunal, and it will be for the tribunal to decide on the details of the particular case.
If an employer were to say that his reason for refusing an applicant was, for example, because the individual had in the past attended and spoken at union meetings or that he had sought the help of his shop steward in taking up grievances with a previous employer, there is no reason to believe that a tribunal would for a moment accept the attempted distinction between those activities and membership.
What we do not for a moment accept is that employers should be put in a position where they may be unable to refuse employment to an applicant whose past conduct they regard as unacceptable, whether or not that person is a union member. The Government believe therefore that the amendment is inappropriate, because the clause is designed to prevent people being refused employment simply because of their membership status. It is not appropriate to deal with the question of their past activities, whether as a member or non-member of a union.
If the noble Lord's purpose is to protect the ordinary and basic incidents of being a union member, the amendment is unnecessary, because the mere fact of membership carries with it a number of incidental activities which are implicit in that. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with that.
Perhaps I may turn to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. It is not entirely clear what activities the amendment seeks to protect, but it
136
appears to be concerned with individuals who have undertaken representative functions on behalf of a trade union or who wish to do so in future. In other words, we are talking about trade union officials. Many of the same considerations apply to this amendment as to Amendment No. 2. Clause 1 is simply not concerned to judge the legality or reasonableness of what an individual has done in the past, or what he may do in the future. It is concerned with his status as a union member or non-member.
However Amendment No. 3 goes much further. An employer would, effectively, be obliged to engage an individual who had been an active trade union official in the past and who made it clear that he intended to be an active trade union official in the future. That goes far beyond what we have in existing law. In other words, the employer might be faced with an individual who has a track record of organising industrial action or who makes it clear at his job interview that he intends to establish a powerful union organisation at the place of work. Of course, the employer might have chosen to recognise the union in which the individual intends to be active and be perfectly happy to engage him, in which case well and good. But the Government believe that it is entirely a matter for the employer to decide whether to recognise a particular trade union and to what extent.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I should be most obliged if I could say a word. My noble friend and I were consulting and we have no right to come back at the end.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord has that right.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We thought not. Perhaps I may put the point to the noble Lord. When he spoke about a person's activities as an official, surely he was speaking of something to which our amendment did not necessarily refer. He questioned the meaning of,
"lawful activities on behalf of an independent trade union".
That is the language of Sections 23 and 58 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. There is absolutely no question of any uncertainty about the boundaries of the amendment in the names of my noble friends and myself.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Baroness when she introduced the amendment. I was not entirely clear what activities the amendment sought to protect. Therefore what I said stands: we do not wish to see an obligation upon employers that they must employ an employee who has quite consistently had an appalling trade union track record of being militant and of organising the kind of activities that would be thoroughly irresponsible in the new company. In other words, that is exactly the way the law stands now.
We have adjusted the law to make it illegal for an employer to refuse to employ somebody because he is a trade union member. That is a big step forward from the current position. I am sure that it has been

137
welcomed and that is why the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is unnecessary and why I hope that noble Lords opposite will reject it.
Perhaps I may make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. We are in Committee and therefore he is quite at liberty to come back whenever he wishes on any of his amendments.
Lord Monkswell: The Minister said that the Government were concerned about the status of the job applicant at the time when the application for the job is made. In that respect, the status of being a trade union member is only of practical relevance in terms of the advertisement for the job. If the advertisement says that the job is only open to people who are not union members or who are union members, then the person making the application has effectively a mechanism for saying, "I have been discriminated against".
We are talking about the status of the individual at the time of the job application, but that status is also relevant in terms of his previous trade union activity. That will only be relevant to the new employer if he has information about the applicant's previous trade union activities.
The practical application of either of these amendments would be to deny the use of the blacklisting referral agencies—about which we have heard so much in recent months—by prospective employers. The practical implications of the amendment and the Bill would be significant in that, as the Bill is written, it would not allow job advertisements to say that union membership or non-union membership was a requirement of the job. With the amendment we would prevent the blacklisting organisations from operating. The only evidence needed would be that a blacklisting organisation had been contacted to provide any information and that a person's name was on the list so that the employer could make the decision.
Lord Strathclyde: We shall be able to discuss so-called "blacklisting" later in the Bill when noble Lords opposite will introduce a new clause specifically on that subject.
Perhaps I may make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. As I understand it, he feels that an employer should be obliged to take on an employee, whatever his past record has been in industrial relations. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. I do not believe that I can say anything that could possibly convince the noble Lord that I am correct. However, it cannot be right that an employer should be obliged to take on somebody who is a proven troublemaker.
Lord Rochester: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for her support. It is fair to say that in my opening speech I anticipated a number of the criticisms that could be and have been made about the amendment. That includes the point made by the Minister that someone who has a complaint concerning his past trade union activities has his
138
remedy in being able to go to an industrial tribunal. I made the point, however, that the Bill does not say so. An essential element in the Minister's case, as I understood it, was that the clause as drafted concerns the status of a person and his membership of a trade union rather than his activities. That is indeed the case. That is the crux of the matter. What someone does is more important than what he is.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, mentioned Amendment No. 3. I did not speak to that amendment advisedly because I am concerned with this amendment. However, as Amendment No. 3 has been mentioned, I should say that in two respects—they have been mentioned in the course of the discussion—my amendment is more modest than Amendment No. 3, which relates not only to union activities that a person has undertaken in previous employment but also to those activities that he or she proposes to undertake in any prospective employment.
Further, in Amendment No. 3 the word "lawful" takes the place of the word "normal" in my amendment. Amendment No. 3 could therefore apply to someone seeking a job who had engaged in activities which were within the law but which in the view of the employer were of a disruptive nature. The question then arises whether the employer should nevertheless be obliged to take on such an applicant. I have already dealt with that point in my opening remarks.
The Minister could have said that he understood what I had in mind although he considered I had gone the wrong way about it. He could have offered to look at the matter again between now and Report in the light of what I have said to see whether he could devise a way in which the principle I have mentioned could be incorporated into the Bill. However, he has not done that. I believe there is a clear difference of principle between the two sides of the Chamber over this matter. Therefore I have no alternative but to divide the Committee.
4.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

David, B.

Airedale, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Alport, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ennals, L.

Attlee, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Aylestone, L.

Falkland, V.

Birk, B.

Gallacher, L.

Blease, L.

Galpern, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bottomley, L.

Glasgow, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Glenamara, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L.

Gregson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grey, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grimond, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hampton, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Hanworth, V.

139

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Nicol, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Oram, L.

Hooson, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peston, L.

Hughes, L.

Phillips, B.

Hunt, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jay, L.

Richard, L.

Jeger, B.

Rochester, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Russell, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Seear, B.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, B.

Listowel,, E.

Shackleton, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stallard, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stedman, B.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mellish, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Walston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Monkswell, L.

White B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Allerton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenway, L.

Annaly, L.

Gridley, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L.

Balfour E.

Hives, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Holderness, L.

Beloff, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Bessborough, E.

Hooper, B.

Blake, L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Joseph, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Killearn, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Caldecote, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clinton, L.

Lurgan, L.

Clitheroe, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork arid Orrery, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cottesloe, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Crook, L.

Morris, L.

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Downshire, M.

Nelson, E.

Eccles, V.

Newall, L.

Ellenborough, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elles, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Erne, E.

Pearson of Rannoch L.

Erroll, E.

Pender, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Porritt, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Reay, L.

140

Rees, L.

Sudeley, L.

Renton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renwick, L.

Swinton, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Teviot, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Thurlow, L.

Seebohm, L.

Tranmire, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Sharples, B.

Trumpington, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strange, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wise, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Young, B.

Strathspey, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("or
(iii) to accept a condition that his terms and conditions of employment shall not include a trade union representation clause").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9.
These amendments are all about the right of an individual to seek to have representation by the union of his choice at his place of employment. As already indicated, the right simply to belong to a union is a somewhat empty right if nothing else goes along with it, not even the right to have activity. People belong to unions in order to have issues that arise at work handled on their behalf. When recruiting among non-unionists, the question asked is, "What can the union do for me?" Unions want to achieve full collective bargaining rights, procedure agreements, facilities and all the rest of it.
However, there may well be situations in which the employer does not recognise the right of the union to bargain collectively for all his employees. There may be reasons for that, but there is no reason why the right of at least representation should not be afforded to an employee who wants to belong to a union or who belongs to a union. That was quite common in the industries for which I was responsible when I was a full-time union official. Some large companies which did not recognise the union were at least prepared to see a union official if a member of the union had a problem, was under discipline or about to be made redundant or had a grievance and wanted representation.
Many trade unionists seeking employment elsewhere would like to be assured when taking a new job that if there is future difficulty they can call in their union officer and the company will not refuse to see him or her and will deal with the individual issue in a reasonable way. That is why we have put down the amendment. It would be wrong for an individual who made such a request at a job interview to be refused employment because that is what he had asked for and that is what he wanted, even in situations where the company did not itself recognise the union for collective bargaining purposes.
That is why we have also tabled Amendment No. 9, which contains the reference to a trade union

141
representation clause and sets out precisely what is meant by representation on an individual basis. It refers to representation on:
"matters concerning discipline, dismissal or other dispute or grievance connected with his employment, by an official of an independent trade union of which he is a member who represents him within the meaning of section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974".
I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: If the noble Baroness understands, my difficulty with the amendment is its insistence, as I see it, that even in companies which do not recognise trade unions the employer has to accept that in matters concerning any dispute or grievance employees should have a statutory right to be represented by a union official. As I see it, it is one thing that in such cases an employee should have what might be called a prisoner's friend. It is another that that friend should, even in non-union firms, necessarily be a union official. With respect, I suggest that that is to go further than may be reasonable in the circumstances.
Lord Strathclyde: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, I shall speak to both Amendments Nos. 4 and 9.
Perhaps I may begin by making no apology for saying yet again that Clause 1 is concerned with trying to ensure that an individual's ability to obtain a job is not affected by the question of whether or not he is a member of a trade union. To that end, subsection (1) quite properly makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse employment to an individual because he will not accept a requirement to join or leave a union after starting work or to make payments in lieu of being a union member. The requirement that the noble Baroness seeks to add in Amendment No. 4 is a very different proposition, although I admire her ingenuity in fitting a right to trade union representation into this particular part of the Bill.
The ACAS code of practice on disciplinary practice and procedures in employment recommends that disciplinary procedures should provide for employees to be represented if they wish. Lack of such provision is therefore a matter that an industrial tribunal must take into account, for example, in a case of alleged unfair dismissal. However, I firmly believe that it is for employers to decide the precise content of disciplinary procedures in the light of the ACAS code of practice and their own circumstances.
Where a union is recognised for collective bargaining purposes, it is sensible and no doubt normal practice for its members to be entitled to be represented by a union official in disciplinary matters. However, the code does not say that there should be trade union representation in every case. No doubt recognising that many employees—and today of course it is a majority and increasing—do not belong to trade unions, that a trade union may not be recognised by the employer or even that the employee may decide to be represented by someone else, the code says that as an alternative to trade union
142
representation the employee should have the right to be represented by a fellow employee of his or her choice.
The Government see no need to go beyond the provisions of the ACAS code of practice. It is open to a trade union which is not recognised for collective bargaining purposes to seek to agree with an employer individual representational rights for its members. I understand that arrangements of that kind are quite common. I cannot agree that it should be made unlawful for an employer to decline to include a right to trade union representation in a job candidate's future terms and conditions of employment, which would be the effect of the amendment. The Government can see no reason to impose a right of trade union representation by statute, and certainly not in the context of Clause 1 of the Bill, which is concerned with protecting an individual from being refused employment because of his status as a trade union member or non-member.
I cannot accept this amendment and trust that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not surprised at the Minister's response, although I am rather disappointed by it because I had thought that he would look at the wording of the amendment and adopt a rather more constructive attitude to it. The amendment states that it should be unlawful to expect an individual going for a job to accept a condition that his terms and conditions of employment shall not include a trade union representation clause. In other words, if someone who has been used to having trade union representation in his previous employment goes along and tells an employer when he is interviewed for a job, "Look, I've been used to being represented by my union and when I come here I should like the right of individual trade union representation", and he is refused a job on those grounds, it should be regarded as unlawful.
I am glad that the Minister referred to the ACAS code; but, on the other hand, the code quite clearly involves the right of individual representation. It also makes clear that the individual has a right to choose to be represented either by a fellow employee or, as is good practice, by a union official, if he so chooses. No one says that the employee must be represented whether or not he is a union member. That is a matter entirely for the individual's choice and desire when he is recruited to a new job. I find the response of the Minister most unhelpful. If he did not like the wording at least he could have accepted the principle involved. He did not do so. Therefore in my view I have no alternative but to test the feeling of the Committee on the amendment.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mellish, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Aldington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Allerton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ampthill, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Annaly, L.

Glasgow, E.

Arran, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Attlee, E.

Greenway, L.

Auckland, L.

Grey, E.

Aylestone, L.

Gridley, L.

Balfour, E.

Grimond, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beloff, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Bessborough, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Blake, L.

Hood, V.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Howe, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Joseph, L.

Caldecote, V.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Layton, L.

Carnock, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Clinton, L.

Long, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lurgan, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cox, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Crook, L.

Margadale, L.

Cross, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mayhew, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, L.

Downshire, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elles, B.

Morris, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Erne, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Erroll, E.

Munster, E.

144

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Nelson, E.

Strange, B.

Newall, L.

Strathclyde, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Orkney, E.

Strathspey, L.

Orr Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinton, E.

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Porritt, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Prior, L.

Thurlow, L.

Pym, L.

Tordoff, L.

Quinton, L

Tranmire, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renwick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rochester, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Russell, E.

Walston, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wise, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Sandys, L.

Young, B.

Seear, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Seebohm, L.

Stedman, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("; or
(c) because he requires the presence, in order to assist in negotiating the terms of the employment, of an official of an independent trade union of which he is a member.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would have the effect of spelling out part of the meaning of trade union membership by making it unlawful to refuse to allow the official of an independent trade union to accompany the applicant for employment. In a sense the amendment tests out the last part of the Government's meaning and conversion to the defence of trade union membership in this context.
As my noble friends have mentioned, unlike non-membership, membership of a union is an active condition. The manner in which work is obtained with some semblance of bargaining capacity with the employer who controls the workplace is an active matter. One occasion when the worker has great need of that freedom of association in action is the moment of hiring. That point has recently been recognised by the courts under existing legislation relating to dismissal. In a recent judgment in the case of Discount Tobacco & Confectionery Ltd. v. Armitage in 1990 Mr. Justice Knox heard the case of an employee who had been dismissed as unsuitable. The Minister might take note of the facts of that case because it is a very good example of reasons which apparently do not refer to trade union membership or activities. The employee was said to be unsuitable. The tribunal found that that related to her demand to have the help of her union official in a dispute about the terms of her original contract of employment.
The 1978 Act provides that the dismissal of an employee by an employer is unfair if the principal reason for such dismissal is that the employee:
"was, or proposed to become, a member of an independent trade union".

145
The Employment Appeals Tribunal took the view that because she had demanded the union official to accompany her she had been dismissed. Perhaps I may quote the judgment of Mr. Justice Knox. It puts the matter more concisely than I can. He stated at page 16 of the Industrial Relations Law Reports:
"[Counsel] drew a distinction between membership of the union, on the one hand, and resorting to the services of a union officer to elucidate and negotiate the terms of employment, on the other, and he accepted that there was evidence of the latter but said that it did not or could not amount to evidence of the former, membership of the union".
The judge was not convinced of that distinction. He stated in this most important passage:
"In our judgment, the activities of a trade union officer in negotiating and elucidating terms of employment is, to use a prayer book expression, the outward and visible manifestation of trade union membership".
He stated that it is an incident of union membership without which the protection in the Act would be reduced almost to vanishing point.
I wondered whether we would hear the Minister state, before I moved the amendment—in which case I would not have moved it—that a similar provision is within the inner core relating to trade union membership. I do not recall his exact phrase. However, I was not sure that he said that. When an employee says, "I want my trade union official to accompany me to help me elucidate and negotiate the terms of employment" (to use the judge's phrase) I was not sure whether the Minister was saying that that was part of trade union membership, was a matter that the employer could treat as objectionable, or was even characteristic of "a proven troublemaker". If the employer has the choice to treat it as the latter, there is very little protection left in the Bill. In other words, the amendment tests how far the Government intend the protection to be effective in real life and not simply in a theoretical debate.
If the Government say that the amendment is unnecessary and that the provision is already included in the Bill, I suggest that they think again. There are those who criticise Mr. Justice Knox's interpretation of Section 58 of the existing Act. It would be nice to have the matter clear. Indeed with a Bill before this Chamber, such clarification would save litigation. If they resist the amendment on the ground that such a situation is not within the inner core of the meaning of trade union membership, then we must ask them to set out a list—it will not be very long—of the type of activities that they include within the phrase "trade union membership". Or can one simply say, "I am a trade union member," and that will be that?
I hope that the Minister will state that the amendment is acceptable in spirit. He will no doubt wish to improve on its words. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I think that I shall disappoint the noble Lord because there is not a great deal that I can add to my comments on Amendments Nos. 4 and 9. It must be true to say that the Government cannot possibly accept the premise of this amendment that it should be unlawful for an employer to refuse a person
146
employment because he requires a representative of his union to be present to assist in negotiating his terms of employment.
However, that has nothing to do with the greater definition of what is or what is not normal trade union activity. I suggest that it is an extraordinary notion that a job applicant should have a statutory right to take a trade union official along with him to a recruitment interview. Once again I believe that it shows that the Opposition are much less concerned with the position of members of non-independent unions or non-members of unions. However, it would be more even handed but no less bizarre if the proposed right allowed the job applicant to be accompanied by a friend or adviser who may or may not be a trade union official.
It would clearly be absurd to legislate on who may or may not be present to hold the applicant's hand at a job interview. That must be up to the employer and the prospective employee to decide among themselves. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment, and to see this amendment for what it is.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Two important matters arise from the Minister's brief reply. He criticised us courteously and I must return the same. In his opening remarks he made the error of referring to trade union activity. The amendment has nothing to do with trade union activity; it is to do with trade union membership, as the case of Discount Tobacco & Confectionery Ltd v. Armitage shows very clearly. I commend that case to the Minister.
If this provision is not included within trade union membership a very weird situation arises on the statute book. The Minister may well find that his interpretation is translated differently by the courts. It would mean that if the Discount Tobacco case were upheld and were to continue in force, the right to have one's official with one will be part of trade union membership—I do not refer to activity—for dismissal but it will not be part of trade union membership in terms of an application for hiring. That would be absurd. The Government will either have to amend Section 58 or they will have to agree that the other clause of this Bill comes into line.
The position is most extraordinary. If we did not know that the Government work as hard as they do, we would think that they have not done their homework. Section 58 and this Bill should surely be within the same compass of meaning as regards the simple words "membership of a trade union". They should not mean different things.
The Government's vision of trade union membership does not include trade union activities. It does not include activities by union officials on behalf of the member. It does not include all the matters that have been put to them. Their vision includes such a small core of content that one would have to have the Hubble telescope working properly in order to be able to identify it. I am sure that the Minister cannot tell us that there is anything left in trade union membership other than the mere fact of saying, "I happen to be a

147
member". That is not what membership is about in real life employment. It is about being part of a living body of people who have representatives who help them, and to which they contribute.
That is not what the Government mean. We are not surprised. There is no point in pressing the amendment. We have made the meaning of the Government's Bill a little clearer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 16, after ("employment") insert ("of any description").
The noble Lord said: It may be appropriate if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 68, 69 and 70.
This group of amendments was stimulated by an amendment tabled by the Opposition at Report stage in another place, though the opportunity has been taken to clarify certain points at the same time.
Clause 1(5) of the Bill lists the types of conduct that are to be regarded as a refusal of employment. It is intended to prevent an employer from evading the purposes of the clause by attempting to rid himself of an unwanted job applicant other than by means of a straightforward refusal of employment. As drafted, it provides that a person shall be treated as having been refused employment in the circumstances described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of that subsection.
A member of the Opposition in another place brought to the Government's attention the fact that a further set of circumstances should be covered; namely, the situation where an employer makes an offer of employment to an individual but withdraws it before it can be accepted. An offer might be made by an employer, not knowing that the individual concerned is—or is not—a member of a particular union, and then withdrawn as soon as the employer discovered the true position. It is clearly right that that should be treated as a refusal and, by adding a new paragraph (e), Amendment No. 7 achieves that purpose.
Amendment No. 7 makes two other improvements to the clause. First, in combination with Amendment No. 6, it takes the opportunity to make clear that a refusal of employment occurs when the applicant is refused the employment which he seeks. This is necessary to cover cases where a job is offered but is not the job the applicant wants and may well be an inferior one.
For example, an employer who receives an application for a job as a skilled toolmaker from a person who is not a member of union X might refuse him that job but offer him instead a job as an assistant storeman. Clearly, we wished the employer to be covered in that case and not to be able to escape by arguing that he had, after all, offered the applicant a job. Amendment No. 7 seeks to achieve that by referring to employment of the description which the applicant is seeking.
Secondly, paragraph (d) currently refers to a "spurious offer of employment", which is separately defined in the tailpiece to the subsection. It was not,
148
however, made clear that the definition was intended to be exhaustive. The relevant part of Amendment No. 7 provides a simple answer by removing the words "spurious offer" and incorporating the words defining such an offer in the paragraph itself. The remaining amendments in the group are entirely consequential to amendment No. 7 and are chiefly concerned with the date on which a refusal of employment is regarded as having taken place.
The Government are grateful to the Opposition for having suggested that there was a possible gap in the coverage of Clause 1. That has resulted in these amendments, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: This bundle of amendments is unfortunately a mixed bag. We readily accept that many of the amendments, which attempt to deal with points which were raised in another place, make the clause as it stands more acceptable. However, other amendments, and in particular Amendment No. 7, make the clause less acceptable. As the Minister said, in the original version at least one might have said that the word "spurious" was not exhaustively defined. Now the Minister tells us that the definition which is now to be embodied in the Bill because the word "spurious" has been deleted; namely:
"such as no reasonable employer who wished to fill the post would offer",
is an exhaustive definition of the circumstances in which employees can say that they have not been made a fair offer. So long as the offer is better than one which any unreasonable employer who wished to fill the post would offer, it is a fair offer.
We find that an unacceptable definition. We would rather have been stuck with the word "spurious". It is in that context that we should like to ask the Minister to look at our Amendment No. 8, although it is to some extent outdated because it assumes that the word "spurious" will be in the Bill. However, we should like the Minister to consider the substance of what we suggest in that amendment for a later stage. Rather than the vague words:
"such as no reasonable employer who wished to fill the post would offer",
we should like something on the lines of the words that we have suggested in Amendment No. 8. We propose the words:
"where the terms offered are as a whole less favourable than the terms of workers in comparable employment in the trade or industry, or section of the trade or industry in which the employer is engaged, which have been settled by one or more collective agreements to which the parties are employers or employers' associations and independent trade unions which represent in each case a substantial proportion of the employers and workers of the same or similar description in the trade".
We believe that that would give some precision to the rather vague phrase. The phrase as it stands, particularly if it is intended to be exhaustive, does not tell us what the pay should be, whether it should be reasonable, what reasonable means, whether there

149
should be any other fringe benefits, or what the hours and conditions should be. If one tries to find a standard one comes back to comparative tests.
The Government will say that they took that out of Schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975. We know that. The Government will say that we are trying to reintroduce forms of contract compliance. We are not doing that. We say that in this narrow case, since the Government have accepted that the term "spurious offer" is not satisfactory, the even more unsatisfactory exhaustive definition that they seek to put on the face of the Bill needs to be broadened and specified in some way. If the Minister does not like the terms of our amendment I suggest that he should come back with something else at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendment No. 8 of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was not formally grouped with the government amendments to which I have spoken. However, if it meets with the approval of the Committee, I am more than happy to speak to that amendment.
Lord Rochester: As I see it, Amendment No. 8 deals with a different matter of principle which I had supposed we would discuss at a later stage. However, if it is the general wish of the Committee that the two sets of amendments should be taken together that is acceptable to us.
Lord McCarthy: I am quite prepared to leave the amendment until later in order to give the noble Lord an opportunity to speak to it independently if he would like to do so. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the change that we should like to see in the Government's amendment is contained in Amendment No. 8 and we should deal with the matter now.
Lord Strathclyde: I take it that the Committee is happy that I should speak to Amendment No. 8. I understand why the noble Lord feels that it is closely connected with the government amendments, which were inspired by the Opposition in another place.
Clause 1(5) of the Bill lists the types of conduct that are to be regarded as a refusal of employment. It is intended to prevent an employer from evading the purposes of the clause by attempting to rid himself of an unwanted job applicant other than by means of a straightforward refusal of employment. I hope that the Committee will agree to the government amendments which clarify the subsection by removing the words "spurious offer" and incorporating the words defining such an offer into the relevant paragraph itself. Although that clause will no longer talk of "spurious offers", it continues to mean that an offer of employment which is on terms:
"such as no reasonable employer who wished to fill the post would offer",
and which is not accepted for that reason, is to be regarded as a refusal of employment.
The Government believe that such a provision is essential to block an obvious loophole. An employer might be all too well aware that refusal to engage an
150
individual because he was, let us say, a union member would be unlawful, but might seek to avoid employing him by offering him a job on terms which were designed not to be accepted. The employer in such a case might, for example, offer the union member remuneration which was set at a derisory level in the hope that the applicant would decline the offer and withdraw. I am sure that the Committee will agree that such evasion would, if permitted, make a mockery of the clause.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is, however, quite another matter. Its wording might seem familiar to the Committee, who may recall how Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975 sought to impose "recognised terms and conditions" of employment upon employers and permitted claims to be made to the Central Arbitration Committee in cases where such terms and conditions were not observed. The Government are proud of the fact that they repealed that schedule 10 years ago. We believe now as we believed then that it is for employers to judge for themselves what terms and conditions of employment are necessary to recruit suitable employees.
As I said before, Clause 1 is concerned with the refusal of employment on grounds of union membership or non-membership and is entirely even handed. It is not and should not be concerned with attempting to ensure that union members and non-members have exactly the same terms and conditions of employment or, indeed, that members of union X have exactly the same terms and conditions of employment as members of union Y.
The amendment constitutes an attempt by the Opposition to turn back the clock to a time when employers were not free, as they now are, to make their own decisions in response to the particular circumstances which they face. The noble Lord must know that we cannot allow the Bill to be subverted in such a way. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will accept the government amendments, which, as I said, were inspired by the Opposition, and will see that the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Rochester: I am now rather confused. It seems to me that there are two distinct matters here. The first concerns the form of words of Amendment No. 7, which was questioned by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. In questioning it, he referred to Amendment No. 8. However, I wish to speak to the substance of Amendment No. 8. Since we are now speaking to both amendments, perhaps I should speak to that amendment now.
As I see it, Amendment No. 8 seeks to ensure that, even in firms which are not themselves members of any employers' association which has made an agreement with trade unions on terms of employment in the relevant industry, the employer seeking to recruit someone should have to pay him or her what may be called the going rate. That would give to trade unions a monopoly in wage bargaining in the trade or industry concerned. On these Benches we are against monopolies.

151
I suggest that the going rate is very different from a minimum income or, in the case of employees covered by wages councils, a minimum wage. For my part I cannot accept the principle underlying the substance of Amendment No. 8.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, does not accept the Government's proposals in Amendment No. 7. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde very generously made clear, they spring from a line taken by the Opposition in another place on which the Government have shown their flexibility of mind by accepting. That seems to me to have produced a fair and satisfactory outcome.
As we are now discussing Amendment No. 8, I want to say that I very much hope that this amendment will be rejected. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, it seeks to establish the going rate, whatever it may be, as a fixed figure which cannot be departed from. It is also likely in practice to be very damaging.
The Committee will be familiar with cases in which particular industries find themselves in difficulty in competition and simply cannot carry on on the basis of accepting levels of wages and conditions of employment such as are operating elsewhere. A company may be in difficulty for one reason or another and may be faced with the decision of closing down and making its men unemployed or, alternatively, the workforce may be asked, for the time being at any rate, to accept a more moderate wage. To suggest, as does Amendment No. 8, that a company thus placed which acts in that way is indulging in rejection of employment seems to me quite outrageous.
We are all familiar with situations in which it is necessary, if a company is to survive, to pay only moderate wages. If the employees do not wish to accept that, the alternative is that the company closes down and the employees become unemployed, which nobody wants. As I understand it, the effect of Amendment No. 8 is to bar that altogether by making it equivalent to rejection of employment or, as the original draft indicated, a spurious offer of employment.
I hope that the Committee will accept Amendment No. 7, which I believe amounts to an improvement in the Bill, and very firmly throw out Amendment No. 8 if it is moved.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is no relationship at all between Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 8 either as a matter of intention or drafting. To put it absolutely boldly, Amendment No. 7 is to ensure that the offer is genuine, straight-up and bona fide. It does not say that because the draftsman has been at work. However, that is what it means.
Amendment No. 8 has nothing to do with that at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, it is a minimum wage-pegging exercise within a reconstructed remit of trade union monopoly. I hope that the Committee will not be confused between one and the
152
other. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the Committee should accept the first amendment and reject the second.
Baroness Seear: I accept that Amendment No. 8 is a rather watered down version of Schedule 11. I know that that will be denied but in substance that is what it is. However, I believe that the wording of Amendment No. 7 is rather vague and open to a lot of argument. For example, I can see that there could be many arguments about the words:
"no reasonable employer who wished to fill the post would offer".
While rejecting Amendment No. 8 the Government should look again at the wording of Amendment No. 7 to see whether an alternative could be achieved which will not be so good for the lawyers.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The Minister kept vaguely referring to the Opposition and how the Government were acquiescing in what was suggested by tabling these amendments. It would be helpful if he could outline the terms of the amendments presented by the Opposition to see how similar or different they are.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that after he had spoken I imagined the sort of situation which could arise. Let us suppose that a company through maladministration—for example, it makes a loan and the money is not repaid—gets into difficulty and then asks the workers to accept lower wages. Surely that is unfair. Is the chairman of the company going to take a cut of £900,000, or will the workers accept that they must lose something like half their salary? I was looking at this matter very dispassionately until the noble Lord explained it. I could then see that once again the poor old man on the breadline will be hammered and the others will go free.
If the Minister wants us to support him, it is reasonable to give us the structure of the amendments tabled by the Opposition. As he says that he has been so kind in falling in with our wishes, can he tell us the content of those amendments?
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: There is no nonsense about fairness on this. The rates which a reasonable employer will offer are the rates which will attract an individual to work for him. In a market economy and in a labour market such as we have, the rate will be at or about what other employers are offering for similar work by similar workers. Therefore, is there any possible way in which one can define what a reasonable employer would offer except in terms which are broadly along the lines of Amendment No. 8? I cannot see that there is any contradiction between the two amendments. On the contrary, one must be expressed in terms of the other. Therefore, why the fuss?
Lord McCarthy: I should perhaps apologise for attempting to help the Committee. We should have had two separate debates. That would have taken longer but would not have enabled us to make the point we wish to make; that is, that whereas in some respects the amendments being moved are an improvement on the face of the Bill, other

153
amendments moved by the Minister make the Bill worse. As the Minister said, they institute a definition which previously was not exhaustive and make it exhaustive. That is the intention of the amendment. That is what the Minister said. That is what we complain of.
It is in that context that we examine Amendment No. 8. I do not suggest that that amendment contains the kind of words the Government would want to include in the Bill, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, perhaps the Government could look at those words. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 8, but perhaps the Government could examine its wording and consider producing at Report stage other words which give more precision to the vague term that they have included in the Bill and which they say is exhaustive.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that this amendment is not too vague. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, perhaps I may say that we are trying to be as conciliatory as possible to the Opposition. I am not sure what the terms of the opposition amendment were in Committee or at Report stage in another place, but I am sure that somebody helpful will be able to point the noble Baroness in the right direction to enable her to make her own comparison.
Suffice it to say it was the principle that the Opposition brought to our attention that we conceded. We tabled these amendments, which seek to make the clause as fair as possible, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, and to ensure that the employer has a genuine offer on the table for the employee to decide what is happening. If the question went to a tribunal it would ask whether it was an offer no reasonable employer who wished to fill the post would make. In other words, is it to be inferred that the offer is not genuine at all? Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 68, 69 and 70 relate to that situation.
I do not wish to confuse the Committee, but Amendment No. 8 is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said it was. It concerns the creation of a monopolistic power for trade union wage rates to be imposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("employment") to end of line 25 and insert ("of that description, or
(d) makes him an offer of such employment the terms of which are such as no reasonable employer who wished to fill the post would offer and which is not accepted, or
(e) makes him an offer of such employment but withdraws it or causes him not to accept it.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: In order to regularise the position I ask that Amendment No. 8 be formally moved, even though it may later be withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy: I should prefer not to move it.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: We must rise to say why we find this clause unsatisfactory and unfair. We must ask the Government to think again about many of the points raised in this debate. We tried to get the clause to include professional associations. We tried to get it to include protection for the normal activities of trade unionists. We tried to obtain minimal rights of representation, effective rights of membership, and to give some precision to the notion of the spurious offer as it was on the face of the Bill. The Government refused to do any of those things.
We ask for a balance between the right to join and the right not to join a trade union, and for protection against being unable to obtain a job because one is or is not a member. We ask for the clause to be balanced and fair. The Government have refused to change any of the provisions of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, the result is an unfair and unbalanced clause which does not give an effective right of membership at all, certainly not in the way that trade union members need to belong to and be active in their union.
We are compelled to ask why the Government do that. We are bound to conclude that it is because they are not trying to establish a fair balance. They see the clause as they see the Bill—as part of their step by step pursuit of trade union organisation. They believe that the trade union closed shop must be put down because it is part of trade union organisation, despite the fact that on all the evidence the pre-entry closed shop in particular is declining rapidly. It declined in membership between 1978 and 1984 from 837,000 to 500,000. If one thinks of all the trades that have been dominated by the pre-entry closed shop—the docks, the printing industry, iron and steel and craft unionism—it is doubtful if there are more than 150,000 workers covered by pre-entry closed shops.
The Government put forward this disgraceful attempt to maintain that there are 1.3 million workers in closed shops based on a sample of 97 employees, 33 of whom say that they are in some funny kind of pre-entry closed shop which must be occupied by out of work actors. They never asked to which union these people belonged or what job they did. At the end of the day they ask us to believe that the pre-entry closed shop is on the rampage. There is no evidence for that and no support for the narrow, mean clause which the Government have inserted in the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I take exactly the contrary view to that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. This is a very important clause; it is probably the most important clause in the Bill. It marks the end, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, hinted, of a long process in dealing with what I have always regarded as the outrage of the closed shop. It is the end of the pre-entry closed shop.
It does not help his argument that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, says that it is dying anyway. If it is dying, that may be recognition that public opinion regards it as unacceptable, and that those involved

155
have begun to have less and less enthusiasm for it. It is no argument against ending what has been an abuse —the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, does not dispute that it has been an abuse—that it is on the run, on the way out, being repudiated, even by those affected. The noble Lord wishes to speak.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpe titer, should understand that the only reason I mentioned those figures was that the Government maintain that pre-entry closed shop membership is on the increase. The Government, on their spurious evidence, ask us to believe that there are 1.3 million workers in pre-entry closed shops. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the practice is dying.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the noble Lord, though I always find his agreement a matter of personal embarrassment. The point I was making was that if he is right—I do not seek to judge between him and the Government—why is he so worked up about it? If it is on the decline, if it is dying, why is he so indignant? Why does he regard it as such an outrage? Why does he table an amendment to strike the clause out of the Bill? If he is right—I am sure he takes the line that he is right—his argument is weaker than ever.
The closed shop has been an evil. It has been supported for many years by the less attractive elements of the trade union movement. As the noble Lord said, it was very strong in certain industries in past years and is basically an unfair provision. It is surely right that if a man or a woman wants a job and applies for it, he or she should neither be refused it nor given it because he or she is a member of a union. Whether or not people are members of a union is a matter for them; it is irrelevant to whether they should be given the job for which they apply.
The closed shop has been an evil. It has been supported for many years by the less attractive elements of the trade union movement. As the noble Lord said, it was very strong in certain industries in past years and is basically an unfair provision. It is surely right that if a man or a woman wants a job and applies for it, he or she should neither be refused it nor given it because he or she is a member of a union. Whether or not people are members of a union is a matter for them; it is irrelevant to whether they should be given the job for which they apply. I am delighted that the day has now come when this Chamber is being asked t o pass into law the demise of what has been, for many years, a blot on the trade union movement.
5.30 p m.
Lord Mellish: The Committee will not be surprised to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and myself are completely opposite in our arguments and attitude. On one point I do agree. This clause ends the closed shop as we know it. I accept that. I am speaking because again I want to say something about the closed shop. I make it abundantly clear that I speak for myself. I do not speak for the Opposition Front Bench or for the Labour Party as such. What I have to say is based on my own experience and what
156
I have lived through. I want to make that clear because on a previous debate it was held that my views were those of the Labour Party. They are not.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Mellish: Yes, but I have only just started.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The reason why the noble Lord's views are taken as official is because he puts the case for the Labour Party so much better than the Front Bench does.
Lord Mellish: All I can say is that I am in favour of the closed shop. I shall tell the Committee why. Perhaps I am old fashioned, outdated, or outmoded—noble Lords can say what they like—but I was brought up in an industry where the closed shop was welcomed by the employers. Indeed, the employers insisted that all workers in the industry should be members of the union.
On Second Reading I asked the Minister whether he had been approached by employers' organisations wishing to abolish the closed shop. That was a fair question. He said that he had not and that, in any case, the question was irrelevant. Is it? I thought that the intention was to cover industrial relations and to improve conditions in the industry for workers. I thought that that was the purpose of the Bill and that abolition of the closed shop was only part of it. However, when I asked for details of the employers' organisations that had asked for the closed shop to be abolished because they wanted improved industrial relations, the Minister said that there had been no such request and that it was irrelevant.
On Second Reading I used a specific word. I said that those who belonged to an industry and who took from employers that which the unions had obtained—that is, improved wages and conditions—were prostitutes. I now withdraw that. I realise that, after all, prostitutes work rather hard—so I am told. Certainly they are self employed; well, nearly always. I do not know much about that as I have no experience. I am going on what I have read or heard about such matters. Certainly, I was wrong to use the word "prostitutes" in describing people who take what the unions have obtained from employers. I withdraw the word and substitute "parasites"—a much better word.
A person can join an industry where wages have been established and conditions improved by the trade union movement, take all that and then say, "Oh, but I have certain principles. I do not believe in belonging to a trade union". That is codswallop. It is rubbish. I will not have it said that people can hold a religious principle. My noble friend Baroness Turner rightly said that there are ways in which religious people—I have in mind Jehovah's Witnesses—can make a donation to charity. That is fair enough. I accept that. However, I repeat that I have nothing but contempt for people who take what is obtained by others in respect of wages and improved conditions. They are nothing more than parasites.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, decently and properly said on a previous debate that

157
I had gone over the top with my arguments. I hold a very strong view. I come from an industry where the closed shop meant a great deal. I am of the old structure; the Ernie Bevin type. I do not know whether there is such a thing as turning in one's coffin but he would deplore the debate we are having today and the suggestion that the closed shop is evil and bad. One needs be involved in the industries with which I was associated to realise how hard men worked to gain a closed shop.
I have nothing but contempt for people like Scargill. It is the Scargills of this world who have done so much harm to the trade union movement. They have destroyed the movement. Do they not understand that? They must not be confused with the Ernie Bevins who did a magnificent job for the unions. I was one of his youngest trade union officials. There is much I could say about the man. He was moderate and sensible. His entire approach was, "Do not argue with the employers unless they have made a profit". Now it is, "Show your strength if they have". I was brought up with his approach. One hears all this stuff and nonsense about the right of individuals not to belong to trade unions. What does that mean? Is it a desire to be a blackleg; a desire to have nothing whatever to do with others who are working and fighting hard to obtain better wages and conditions? Is that to be held up as an example of freedom of choice?
What the Front Bench of the Labour Party does is its business. I do not know whether there is to be a vote. If there is, I shall vote against Clause 1 standing part of the Bill for reasons opposite to those of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I believe that the closed shop principle is absolutely right. I believe that the vast majority of decent employers want it. The Government are set on the line that the Arthur Scargills of this world have done considerable harm to the trade union movement, as they have. Scargill has committed every known crime. He is the only man I know in the trade union movement who, on television, disclosed what went on with the employers. You do not do that. Never do you do that!
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was chairman of the National Coal Board when my noble friend Lord Gormley—he is not present at the moment—was head of the miners' union. During their negotiations did anyone in this Chamber, or in the country, know what they said? They rowed like mad. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Gormley, left, whatever his shortcomings, the miners were top of the league. All miners had to belong to the NUM. What about that for a closed shop! The miners themselves wanted it. So they were the top in industry. Then this wretched man Scargill goes on television making great speeches which proved flamboyant rubbish. He disclosed what had gone on between himself and the so-called employer who, incidentally, was just as bad in choosing to appear on television. I squirmed. It was an affront to everything I had been brought up to believe. Negotiations between trade unions and employers should be confidential. But not that lot. Oh no, that was all changed.
158
Now this Government are stupid enough to bring in a Bill which is supposed to be a public relations Bill. It will be nothing of the sort. It will do a great deal of harm. I am in favour of the closed shop. I do not care what people say. I have lived all my life believing that it is the strength of the trade union movement. And in that belief I echo the voice of a great trade union leader.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, speaks with sincerity and passion. He has the courage of his convictions, and always he has the ear of the Chamber. With the greatest respect and deference, I think he has gone over the top, as I said recently. I shall not take up time by repeating everything I said because this is a re-run of the debate instigated by my noble friend Lord Caldecote. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has said much the same, omitting a word or two, as he said on that occasion. I do not intend to say what I or anyone else said at that time. It is pointless to have a re-run.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, inevitably—one understands his position—has to make a sort of ritualistic Second Reading speech on the familiar lines to which this Chamber has become accustomed. Again, there is no point in attempting a reply from these Benches. There are two views. I happen to share the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I do not always share his views, but I do in this respect. I congratulate the Government for seeking to ensure the end of the outrage.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The so-called closed shop, the 100 per cent. trade union shop or the union membership agreement, has taken many forms. I suspect that it will also take many forms in the future. We are seeing a change in its shape and in its arrangements. However, at its heart there is a purpose and an intention to which the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has referred. It is not a mean or a base motive. The motive is that of fair play which is a phenomenon well known and admired by the British.
At the heart of the 100 per cent. shop is the firm belief that people who get the advantage of services and gains should be prepared to pay their whack towards achieving those advantages. Who among us will defend the man on the bus from here to Clapham who claims that he should not and need not pay his fare because the bus has to go there anyway and the rest of the passengers have paid their fare? Who among us would walk into the Carlton Club and claim that he can take advantage of the facilities and not pay the annual membership fee? I am certain that we would reject such notions.
The same principle should apply to people who take the advantages of trade union activity but refuse to share in the obligations. Those with religious convictions I am among the first to seek to exclude. Of those with a conscience about the closed shop, that conscience in my experience has usually lived round about their pockets—a reluctance to meet and pay for their obligations. It is acknowledged that the Government will have their way. However, that will not eradicate the belief held by working men and women that some means should be found to ensure

159
that free riders are not accorded the respect in our society which this clause seeks to confer on them. That is why I am opposed to the clause.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will it be Labour Party policy to reintroduce the closed shop? I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to answer from where he sits.
Lord McCarthy: I tried to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that we are not opposing the abolition of the pre-entry closed shop. We are saying that it should be done in a balanced way. We shall not be voting against the clause. We are trying to get the Government to consider some of our amendments at Report stage. We are saying that the abolition should be done in a fair and balanced way.
Baroness Phillips: I support my two noble friends who have spoken. I have said before that I find it very offensive that we constantly refer to the closed shop in relation to certain industries and professions. As an historian I return to why the City livery companies were formed. The members are very proud to belong to those organisations. The companies were formed as a protection against people who lacked the qualifications to do the job. That is a closed shop.
The professions of medicine and law—need I go on?—are closed shops because the members do not wish to work with people who do not possess the same qualifications or who have not gone through the necessary training in order to work beside them. There is no real difference. For many years journalists had a closed shop. Now many people go into journalism. An old journalist will tell you of his pride in the skills of his craft. That was why journalists had what we now call a closed shop.
Why do we apply that term only to certain professions and jobs? There is nothing wrong with wanting to work side by side with someone with the same kind of qualifications and application to the job. As my noble friend has said, they are paying. I remember how, as a teacher, I despised those who would not join a union. I said to them, "You have no right to enjoy the privileges that we have had to work for if you are not prepared to make a small contribution". It is simply the alliance and loyalty of a group of people who believe that they should only work with people who have the same standards and qualifications. Let us stop this talk about the closed shop: it seems to have an unfortunate connotation. I endorse what my two noble friends have said.
I am proud to have been part of the trade union movement which has done marvels for the people who have worked in it. I hope that they will never regret the fact that the movement is not now so enthusiastically supported as it was. We live in very troubled times. If employers are in difficulty they first cut the labour force. They do not reduce the number of people at the top; they reduce the numbers at the bottom. There may come a day when we shall once again need the famous closed shop. In the meantime let us not take the attitude that there is something evil about it. It was necessary, and it is still necessary.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I can be very brief. I have already made it plain that my noble friends and I fully support the Government's decision, after 10 years of the step-by-step approach initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Prior—whom I am glad to see in his place—to bring the pre-entry closed shop to an end. On the basis of that principle I would very much like to support the Motion that the clause stand part.
However, the Committee will also remember that earlier today I said that a person should be no more denied employment on account of engaging in responsible trade union activities than because he was a trade union member. That being so, I cannot conscientiously support the passing of the clause.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is the Minister not aware that this is not the first time that there have been suggestions that the closed shop should be ended? Is he not aware that in 1940, in this country's hour of greatest peril, Winston Churchill approached the trade union movement and asked it to waive its historic rights, which it did? It agreed to dilution within the engineering services and that allowed hundreds of thousands of men and women to be recruited into engineering as semi-skilled people. In some cases they became highly skilled without the problem of having to join a trade union.
Is the Minister not further aware that when that took place Winston Churchill is on record as having paid tribute to the trade union movement for what it had done for this country in its hour of greatest need? I wonder what that great man would think today about the shabby deal which this Government are giving the trade union movement.
Lord Strathclyde: If the first clause of this Bill is passed it will undoubtedly represent one of the most important landmarks in the history of industrial relations and trade union law in this country by signalling the end of the pre-entry closed shop. The post-entry closed shop is already unenforceable but it is still lawful for an employer to refuse to engage workers because they are not—or indeed because they are —members of a trade union.
In any civilised society individuals should be free to choose for themselves whether or not to belong to a union. The continued existence of the pie-entry closed shop places an unacceptable restriction on that freedom. The pre-entry closed shop also has very damaging economic effects. Chapter 2 of our Green Paper, Removing Barriers to Employment sets these out in some detail and there is no need for me to repeat them today. There can be no doubt that the pre-entry closed shop restricts training opportunities, leading to shortages of skilled labour. And it artificially inflates labour costs with consequent damage to profitability and jobs.
It is not surprising that during this brief debate we have heard a variety of opinions on the closed shop. Some people, inside and outside the Chamber, will no doubt accuse the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, of being dinosaurs in their approach. I shall not accuse them of that. I have

161
nothing but respect and admiration for the noble Lord's speech. It was inspired, passionate and above all sincere in its tribute to the trade union movement and to the closed shop. However, we have already discussed this clause in great detail and we have voted on two or three occasions this afternoon.
The Opposition have objected to many aspects of the clause. They have objected to the fact that the clause does not cover professional associations, although it is perfectly clear that the Bill is not an appropriate means of regulating entry to the profession. They have objected to the fact that, although evenhanded on the questions of membership or non-membership, the clause does not stop an employer refusing to employ a union activist. They have objected to the fact that the clause does not deal with questions of union representation and recognition which clearly go beyond the issue of access to employment. They have continued to avoid answering the question—at least I think that they have continued to avoid answering the question—whether in the event that they were ever returned to power they would guarantee unconditionally in legislation the freedom of the individual to choose for himself whether or not to join a trade union.
The Opposition have not made clear whether they would continue the protections which current legislation provides against the enforcement of union labour-only contracts and union membership agreements. Therefore I invite Opposition spokesmen, as I invited them at Second Reading, to join me in urging all trade unions which continue to deny basic individual rights by operating pre-entry closed shops to take immediate steps to dismantle them. There is no need to wait for the Bill to become law. There is no need to deny these basic individual rights any longer. If the Opposition have changed their policy on the closed shop, let them say so quite clearly now.
The Government believe that Clause 1 represents a significant and overdue change to the law of this country. It is now time to come to a vote on the penalty shoot-out clause of the Bill. I hope that in doing so all Members of the Committee will examine their consciences, look carefully at the principles we have debated and go through the Lobbies according to those beliefs. This is an historic moment—the ending of the closed shop—and it is important that the views of the Committee should be adhered to.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord asked a direct question and he is entitled to an answer. Our amendments to the Bill show the position of the Labour Party and the Opposition on the closed shop. If he is not certain of that and wants it stated again I refer him to the Labour Party policy document Looking to the Future. It states:
"the right to join a trade union is of fundamental importance and must be allied to strong rights of representation and recognition if it is to be real. Whilst recognising the freedom not to join a trade union in the Charter, we fully support and advocate 100 per cent. trade union membership".
That is the party's policy. If the noble Lord wants the details he can get them from the amendments. I say
162
once again that we started this debate in order to get the Government to say some kind words about one or other of our amendments. They have not said them. We do not intend to divide the Committee but I ask the noble Lord to think about the issue between now and Report stage.
5.54 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
[Division Called.]
Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Blacklists
Where a person provides information to an employer which relates to the activities, or the past or prospective activities, of another person on behalf of an independent trade union within the meaning of section 23 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (in this section known as a "blacklist") and that other person is refused employment by the employer—

(a) the employer shall be presumed to have unlawfully refused employment by reason of that other person's membership of a trade union; and

(b) the person providing the blacklist shall be jointly and severally liable with the employer on a complaint under section 1(2) above.").

The noble Baroness said: With this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72 to Schedule 1. The Bill makes it unlawful to refuse access to employment on grounds related to trade union membership. We considered that question in our debates on the previous clause. However, recruitment practices exist in the United Kingdom which could nullify what the Bill allegedly sets out to do. I refer to the practice of secret blacklisting of individuals who are debarred from employment because of their supposed political or trade union activities or connections.
An organisation has recently been giving evidence to the Select Committee on Employment of another place. The Select Committee has been considering recruitment practices and in the course of its investigations has interviewed representatives of the Economic League. A recent "World in Action" programme threw some light on the activities of this rather sinister organisation. I say "sinister" because it surely is sinister and entirely unacceptable that one's right to earn a living should be put in jeopardy as the result of secret information being given to an employer unknown to the job applicant and which the job applicant has absolutely no opportunity to check for accuracy.
The Economic League has been in existence for about 70 years. Allegedly it exists—so it says—to assist in the development of a widespread understanding of the value and importance of profitable industry and to fight subversion. However, a major part of its activities consists of keeping records of individuals alleged to be subversive—and what that means is entirely within the league's definition. It can be very wide indeed, covering membership of organisations such as CND, the Child Poverty Action Group, Christian Aid and other charitable organisations, as well as the more obvious Left-wing organisations. The information is then supplied, on request, to employers who are subscribers to the league.
People who apply for jobs and whose applications are rejected have no means of knowing why they have been rejected, or of challenging the information supplied by the league. As a result of the "World in Action" programme, much more attention has been given to the practices of the league. The information it has on people is not on computer and therefore it escapes the requirements of the Data Protection Act.
There was an interesting exchange between representatives of the league and members of the Employment Committee in another place on the matter of record keeping. On that occasion, representatives of the league were asked whether it kept lists. At first the representatives denied that they did so. They were then questioned by the chairman as follows:

"Question: You do not keep lists at all?

Answer: We do not.

Question: You do not have an index of names?

Answer: We have an index, we do not produce a list.

Question: What is the difference between an index of names and a list?"

There followed a rather rambling reply which included the words:
"You will know from our documentation that we have submitted to you that we encourage and advise our client companies which utilise our pre-employment vetting service to supply the information we provide them with, if any, to the individual concerned in its entirety, quoting the Economic League as the source.

Question: But you do have a list?

Answer: We do.

Question: You have a file?

Answer: We do not create blacklists.

Question: You have a file, with a list of names?

Answer: We have records, sir".

It is clear from the "World in Action" programme, and more particularly from a recent book written by the researcher and producer of the programme, that the records are far from accurate. Instances have come to light fortuitously, so to speak, of individuals who certainly could not be described as subversive but who nevertheless have been put on the league's records as troublemakers and have had their employment prospects damaged as a result. The cases are very well documented and are contained in the publication to which referred.
The former director of the league from the North West has described the system of record-keeping as
164
chaotic. Moreover, there has been little evidence that individuals denied jobs as a result of information from the Economic League have ever been given the information in its entirety, as representatives of the league claimed was the case. In any event, there is no obligation to provide it, either on the part of the league or on the part of the employer. Equally, there is no obligation on employers to check any information supplied by the league and no evidence to suggest that that is ever done.
It is sometimes argued—indeed, the league's representatives argued this point before the Employment Committee in another place—that it is for the individual to take appropriate action if he feels that information which has been supplied is inaccurate. However, that is totally unrealistic. To start with, the league operates in a secretive way. An individual would not necessarily know that he had been the subject of a check. Even if the information were to come to light, the only remedy would be by way of libel action in the courts. But first the individual would need proof, which is hard to come by, as I have already said. Even more important is the fact that most people so libelled are ordinary working people seeking jobs. Libel actions are notoriously expensive, the risks are considerable and there is no legal aid available. Therefore, this is virtually a non-remedy; in fact, there is no remedy.
We have an organisation operating in our midst which does so in secret, whose files and card indexes are not open to public scrutiny and which derives its information about so-called activities and political proclivities from dubious sources—often the tabloid press. The league is not publicly accountable in any way, and yet its activities can result in a loss of livelihood for individuals who need jobs in order to live.
The league says that it operates as a result of contributions from member firms. It is to the credit of a number of leading employers—the high street banks among them—that as a result of the spotlight thrown on the league's activities they have withdrawn support. The CBI too does not like the league and the Institute of Personnel Management is against it. However, a large number of companies still subscribe and undoubtedly use the services of the league when recruiting employees.
One way of dealing with the matter may be to extend the provisions of the Data Protection Act to cover manual records. They would then be open to scrutiny. However, I do not think that that would go far enough. For many years a private agency with no public accountability has been quietly vetting and in effect blacklisting thousands of people and doing so for activities which are all perfectly legal. Fortunately, people in this country have the right to belong to political parties of their choice and to belong to unions, other organisations and pressure groupings of various kinds. Even on its own showing, the league has been carrying out about 100,000 checks every year. It is quite immoral. It ought to stop. That is why I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: As a Liberal Democrat, I can well understand the feelings which prompted the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, to move this amendment. I never had much love for the activities of the organisation to which she referred—namely, the Economic League—which conveys information to employers about the alleged activities of potential recruits to their employment. That feeling dates from a time about 40 years ago when it fell to me to ensure that the two people who were representatives of the league and who regularly sought to address employees of the company for which I then worked were kept in their proper place; that is, outside the factory gates.
The methods employed by the Economic League to compile its information are to my mind highly suspect. Like the noble Baroness, I am thinking especially of its use of manually compiled files in a way which means that they escape the obligations of accuracy which are imposed upon computer records under the Data Protection Act. The noble Baroness said that one way to deal with the matter would be to extend the provisions of the Data Provision Act to cover manually held records. That may be a question for the Home Office rather than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
However, in supporting the amendment I should like to ask the Minister whether he agrees in principle that the degree of protection accorded to individuals should not be dependent upon the way in which information about them is compiled. The amendment aims to provide a more immediate means of correcting abuses which may arise from the use by employers of so-called blacklists. I support that objective.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment. I too share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, about the blacklisting activities to which reference has been made. However, there are other ways in which this problem ought to be dealt with. The proposed new clause is really straining the wording of the Bill. To import this as a new dimension of the concept of a,
"Refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership",
is straining the Bill to creaking point.
It has been used as an overt attack on the Economic League, about which I must admit I know little. I am not here to support, oppose or criticise it. What has been said has been said. Let us assume that it is all true. Let us assume that there is a mammoth problem. All right; let it be dealt with. Is this the way to deal with it? It requires careful thought because we are moving into the realm of intrusion into privacy, where there is always the good, the bad, the counter-balance, and so forth. Let us not step hastily into an area such as this into which so far our common law has not entered.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not propose to repeat all the points that I made when referring to the earlier opposition amendments concerning trade union activities, but it can safely be assumed that much of what I said then applies to the new clause (after Clause 1) with which we are now dealing. I must say at the
166
outset that, as a result of those earlier amendments not having been accepted, the new clause would have an odd effect. It would mean that an employer could lawfully act on his own knowledge of an individual's trade union activities in refusing him employment, but if he took into account any information about such activities provided by a third party the refusal of employment would be unlawful.
Clearly that would not be a sensible position, but in fact the position is worse than that. The new clause would have the effect, which I suspect is unintentional, that whenever an employer had received information about an individual's trade union activities it would be unlawful to refuse that individual employment whatever the reason for refusal, even if it had nothing to do with the individual's union activities. That cannot be right.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sure that the Minister did not mean to elide part of the amendment. I am grateful to him for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps to save time, he called it an amendment that would make it unlawful for the employer to act as he described. In fact, the amendment provides that the employer is presumed to have unlawfully refused employment. The amendment does not make such a presumption conclusive. It is open to the employer to show that other reasons were present. The amendment is clear on that point.
Lord Strathclyde: I see the amendment in a far more definite light, but there we are. I am not a lawyer and I cannot look at the matter with legal precision. I still suspect, which is why I said that I believed the effect was unintentional, that the amendment would have the effect that I said it would have, though I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said that that effect is not intentional and that that is not what is required.
In any event, it is apparent that what we have here is another attempt by the Opposition to outlaw what they describe as Economic League blacklists. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that we are not here to defend the Economic League, or to condemn it. That is something that noble Lords opposite can take up with the Economic League as the Select Committee of another place has done.
In Committee, in another place, the Opposition tried to argue that because the Bill will make it unlawful for an employer to select only new recruits whose names appear on a union's list. It should equally be unlawful for him to select new recruits whose names do not appear on an Economic League blacklist. As my honourable Friend the Minister of State made clear then, that attempted analogy bears no relationship to reality. That is because the Economic League, unlike some trade unions, does not submit candidates for employment, and because employers do not agree to employ only people that the Economic League puts forward.
The Government firmly believe that an employer should be entirely free to refuse to take on a job applicant whose previous activities, whether or not in a trade union context, he considers unacceptable.

167
Equally, we can see no reason why employers, if they choose to do so, should not be free to use the services of organisations which compile information that may be helpful to them in selecting suitable persons for employment. But the new clause is not confined just to organisations whose function is to collect and supply information to employers; it would also cover references from an individual's past employers.
Surely it cannot be right that an individual's past employer who provides a confidential reference for a prospective employer, which includes a factual statement about that individual's trade union activities, could later be found to be party to an unlawful refusal of employment. Of course, employers who use such information, whether it is obtained from the Economic League or from other sources, should satisfy themselves as to its quality and accuracy. They might, for example, ask for second opinions from other sources, but those are not, in the Government's view, matters that require any amendments to the Bill.
I hope, for the reasons that I have outlined, it is understood that the Government cannot accept the amendment. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister, even if he does not like the wording, does not accept the validity of the points made by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in support of the amendment. I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that by tabling the amendment we are straining the Bill, because, as I understand it, Clause 1 relates to recruitment practices. The amendment is clearly about recruitment practices.
One of the worst features of the Economic League, the organisation to which I referred—there may well be other organisations—is that it operates secretly without any accountability. It is not possible to subject its records to scrutiny, and the individuals who fail to obtain employment due to that organisation's activities have no redress because the whole affair is conducted in secret. The lists that it compiles about people often contain inaccurate information and it has a broad idea of what constitutes subversive activity.
Moreover, the keeping of blacklists and the general business of blacklisting employees is a breach of ILO Convention 98 of which we are a signatory. I shall not deal with the tricky point made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn about assumptions. He dealt effectively with the point made by the Minister about the wording of the amendment and I shall not go over that point again.
As was clear from the way in which I moved the amendment, I feel strongly about the issue. It is a question of civil liberties. It is desperately unfair that people should be prevented from obtaining jobs because of secret information provided to their would-be employers. As I have said, many employers now regard the league, and other similar organisations, as unacceptable and do not use its services although they once did. The league's employer membership is declining. Nevertheless, the practice is
168
still widespread. It is unfair that it should continue, and in those circumstances it is my intention to test the feeling of the Committee.
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mellish, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Foot, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Listowel, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Faithfull, B.

Arran, E.

Ferrers, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Balfour, E.

Greenway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Hanson, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bessborough, E.

Henley, L.

Blake, L.

Hesketh, L.

Blatch, B.

Hives, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Holderness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caccia, L.

Kimball, L.

Caithness, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Long, V.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cox, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigavon, V.

Margadale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Merrivale, L.

Crook, L.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Derwent, L.

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Munster, E.

Elibank, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

169

Nelson, E.

Somerset, D.

Orkney, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strange, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Pearson of Rannock, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Pender, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Pym, L.

Sudeley, L.

Quinton, L.

Swinton, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rodney, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vernon, L.

Sandys, L.

Vinson, L.

Sharples, B.

Wynford, L.

Slim, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.26 p.m.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to. Clause 4 [Secondary action]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) Secondary action satisfies the requirements of this section if is done with the support of a ballot under Part II of the Trade Union Act 1984 and—

(a) the purpose or principal purpose of the action is directly to prevent or disrupt the supply of goods or services during the dispute between the employer party to the dispute and the employer under the contract of employment to which the action relates; and

(b) the secondary action (together with any corresponding action relating to other contracts of employment with the same employer) is likely to achieve that purpose.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11 and speak to Amendment No. 12. Both of these amendments concern what is now called under Clause 4 of the Bill, "secondary action". It has been so called in our system of labour law since 1980, although before that it was usually called—as it still is in the trade union movement—"sympathetic action" or, in most systems of Western Europe, "solidarity action".
Members of the Committee may find these two amendments familiar. Both attempt to cut a path through what the Government now intend for the first time effectively to be a total ban—perhaps with the minor exception, if it is such, of subsection (3)—on secondary action as defined in Clause 4, replacing Section 17 of the Employment Act 1980.
The reason that our amendments will be familiar to some Members of the Committee is that they describe the area, broadly speaking, of what came to be known as the "gateways to legality for secondary action" which were included in the Employment Act 1980.
Perhaps I may spend a moment upon the history. The Government have never explained why, after 10 years, they are now revoking the gateways to legality for secondary action which were included in Section 17(3) and (4) of the Employment Act 1980. I add immediately that we always said that we regarded the gateways as less effective than the Secretary of State considered them at the time. We believe that experience in the courts over the past 10 years has
170
proved that to be correct. There has never been a major case in which the gateways—sometimes optimistically called the protection whereby supplies are interrupted from the first supplier to the first customer—have availed a defendant. That is one of the reasons why there is a minor difference in wording between our amendments. However, broadly, they cover the same kind of ground, namely, that sympathetic action should be allowed where there is a direct disruption of the supply of goods or services. It should also be allowed—this is covered especially in Amendment No. 12—where there is a disruption of supplies from a group of companies where there are commercial relations between either two subsidiaries or the holding company and a subsidiary within the group. The provision does not bite on companies merely because they are in the same group and associated.
We further believe that sympathetic action should be allowed where an employer intervenes and supplies goods or services,
"not previously supplied by him and normally supplied by the primary employer"
as a means of helping in a dispute.
Before the Minister even asks, I should say that these two amendments do not represent our total policy on secondary action. There are other amendments to come. However, we feel they constitute a good place to start. We wonder whether the Minister will now tell us why the Government disagree with the stance taken by the Secretary of State, now the noble Lord, Lord Prior, in 1980. The point was not explained in another place. I gave 00000the noble Lord, Lord Prior, notice that I wished to quote him. He agreed and said that he would attend or not attend the Chamber as the mood took him.
On 17th April 1980 at col. 1490 of the House of Commons Hansard the then Secretary of State defended his gateways to legality by saying that,
"the only other position that we could take would be to say that there will be no immunity for anything other than primary action".
That is now the Government's position. The Secretary of State continued:
"I do not believe, for reasons that I shall give, that that is either a practical or a reasonable position to take … We are seeking to reach a position which we believe is fair and which recognises the traditional rights of the trade union movement".
We, of course, did not agree with that stance. The Secretary of State added at col. 1498 of the House of Commons Hansard:
"the clause does not attempt the easy way out—the simple, easily-constructed position of removing immunity for all but primary disputes. No, the clause genuinely seeks a position which is balanced and reasonable. Simple repeal of the immunities for all secondary action would not be right… I have said on a number of occasions from this Box that, just as it is not reasonable to leave trade unions with more power than they need in the vain hope that they will not misuse it, so also it would be unreasonable to weaken them to the extent that they are unable to defend their members against attack. Finding the right course calls for enormous effort and thought… It will not be achieved by reburnishing our prejudices".
It would be nice if noble Lords who voted for that provision would explain why they are now going to vote against this amendment. Perhaps the Minister did not vote for that provision. However, I am sure that had he been present on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, would have persuaded him to do so. What has happened to cause this change of mind? All we ever hear of are strange incidents. The case of the Ford motor company has been referred to many times. We have stressed that that was not a case of secondary action at all, or, in so far as it contained that element, it was far from the core of the problem. There have been no historical events or crises to cause this reaction. It is simply a question of a change of mind. Sympathetic action is not very well understood by this Government.
Having reread the debate that took place in 1980, I can understand the case that was made at that time. However, I do not agree with it. Is it understood that there are many kinds of solidarity action? There is the kind where one employer is an ally of the primary employer. That situation is covered by parts of our amendments. There are cases where sympathetic action is truly altruistic. British workers in our ports have a fine tradition of taking action at no profit to themselves, and sometimes to their disadvantage. They have taken such action to assist crews, mainly from developing countries, imprisoned in ships flying flags of convenience, to obtain the minimum conditions for seafarers contained in international agreements. However, this Government's legislation does not take that situation into account. Such action is to be rendered unlawful.
There are cases where one group of workers manifestly has a direct common interest with other groups of workers. On a later amendment we shall consider a case where even the Government appear to accept that a common interest exists. We shall see whether the Government agree that there can be community in action.
This matter is partly a question of misunderstanding. If we could not explain the clause that way, we would have to say that it was directed at establishing a reburnishing of prejudices against the trade union movement, as the noble Lord, Lord Prior, suggested. Worse than any misunderstanding is the fact that the Bill represents another breach of international standards. I am sorry to repeat the point to the same Minister. However, irrespective of the procedural consequences and finalities of the case itself, the committee of experts of the International Labour Organisation, in considering the United Kingdom's legislation on strike law, especially relating to this area, said in April 1989 that,
"The overall effect of legislative change in this area since 1980 is to withdraw protection from strikes and other forms of industrial action in circumstances where such action ought to be permissible … The Committee … ask the government to introduce amendments which enable workers to take industrial action … (and) which accord adequate protection of the right to engage in … protest strikes and sympathy strikes as guaranteed by Articles 3, 8 and 10 of the Convention".
The convention referred to in the quotation is convention No 87 on freedom of association of 1948.
Those comments were made as regards the law as it stood at that time. The Government's response is to repeal even the tiny and ineffective gateways to legality contained in the 1980 Act without meeting the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, of 1980 and without explaining their position on the ILO convention—I have referred to only one of many documents showing the position under the ILO convention—other than to say their position is not a breach of that convention. They plead not guilty to a breach of that convention, but they offer no explanation of their stance.
The ILO committee of experts makes it clear that if workers have a direct interest in a dispute, the boundaries of the employment unit cannot define their right to strike under the international convention. One finds that to be the case under all the major European systems of labour law. The right to withdraw labour cannot be limited in any democracy by boundaries drawn according to the employment unit because it is the employer who defines the employment unit. Therefore, the right to strike is put entirely into the hands of the employer. That fact is understood in all the major systems. Every legal system puts some limits on sympathetic or solidarity industrial action, but no other European code of labour law bans it altogether. None permits the legal veils of an employer's corporate identities within a group of companies to determine workers' rights absolutely.
Some systems are quite strict; for instance, the German law. However, it permits sympathetic solidarity action on the basis of what may be called "the ally test". The most recent case that I know of occurred in 1985. It was stated that where an employer had "departed from his 'neutrality'" or had taken over the production of another employer and had been an ally in that sense, secondary action must be allowed.
In most countries it is a case of a test of interest. In Italy a wide test of interest is applied. It is a case of whether the workers have a common interest and whether both the actions in themselves are inherently lawful. We have met that situation in our amendments by providing for ballots. We have used the structure of labour law as it stands, other than on one particular point.
In France, if both actions are lawful and the demands,
"relate to the interests of the second group"
the secondary action is lawful. That is a quotation from a textbook. A similar test is used in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and even in Greece, although Greece in other ways is rather restrictive in its strike laws.
Historically, nationally and internationally, the Government therefore appear to have a poor case for at this point—after 10 years—taking away even those two small areas of legality for what is now called secondary action. Their main argument in the Green Paper was simply to restate—I quote from paragraph 3.10 of the Green Paper—that:
"The Government sees no reason why employers who are not a party to a dispute should be at risk of having industrial action organised against them".
Lord Strathclyde: Absolutely!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister said "Absolutely". It is important that he said that because the Government will not have any exception to that. Their policy is that employers should always be allowed to help other employers in a dispute, but employees should never be allowed to help other employees in a dispute. Some people might think that that was other than a fair and balanced attitude to industrial relations. They might even think that it would be counter-productive.
I see from the Minister's helpful comment of "Absolutely" that he will be against the amendments, but I want to hear from him an account and a reasoning which matches the standard of the reasoning, with which I disagreed in the end but which existed in 1980 at the time of office of the noble Lord, Lord Prior. The affairs of this country deserve at least some reasoning. In that hope at least, I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that the Committee will in no circumstances accept the amendment. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, a technical, detailed and legalistic discussion about cases in which both of us at various times have been involved. One could argue about their merits, but this is not the place to do so. They have by and large produced satisfactory and fair results, but, as in all spheres of law, there have been some hard decisions.
The noble Lord also indulged in a comparative thesis of labour laws in other states which on detailed analysis—I promise the Committee that I shall not attempt such an analysis—bear no true comparison at all.
The noble Lord also mentioned a committee of experts. That committee of experts is always trotted out. I get so bored with that committee of experts who opine on this and opine on that. However, the one thing that they never take into account, because it does not matter a fig to them, is that, as a result of what has happened here under this Administration, our strike record on days lost is better than it has been for years and years. That is what matters in the economic sense—in the generation of wealth, in the maintenance of standards and in keeping employment reasonably high.
Perhaps I may now turn to the subject of secondary action, which is sometimes also called sympathetic action. It has never been satisfactorily defined in any of the statutes that have been passed. It has always been a maze of incomprehensible complexity. The judges in the courts have done their best, but, at root, it is indefensible. It is a hangover of the trade union and I have always stood against that aspect of trade unionism. It is a hangover from the desire of trade unions to use their power as a lever.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Does the noble Lord agree that sympathy action can sometimes be altruistically motivated and that groups of workers might sometimes wish, for quite altruistic reasons and not for self-aggrandisement, to help other groups of workers? Is that not sympathy action?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept that workers may feel sympathy for other workers, but I do not accept—the noble Baroness is entitled to disagree with me—that that sympathy should extend to inducing other workers for whom they have sympathy, or vice versa, to break their contracts of employment with another employer.
I am relieved and grateful that at long last the Government will do away with that. I do not expect the noble Baroness or noble Lords on the Benches opposite to agree, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who speaks from his conscience, I speak from mine. The Government are absolutely right on this point.
Lord Rochester: As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has reminded us, Clause 4 has the effect of making all secondary action illegal. He told us what the Government's position was in 1980. The Government's view is that there have since then been abuses. The question therefore is whether the mischief that has occurred since 1980 is sufficient to justify this new measure.
Whatever view may be taken by the Committee about that question, we are now discussing the amendment. It proposes that secondary action should be lawful if its purpose is to:
"disrupt the supply of goods or services during the dispute between the employer party to the dispute and the employer under the contract of employment to which the action relates".
As I see it, that could once again lead to a situation in which we might see miners picketing railway stations or railway workers blacking coal and so on. I should not be at all happy about that.
We are also discussing Amendment No. 12. I have more sympathy with subparagraph (i) of the amendment. In this matter of secondary action, it is essential that there should be even-handedness between employers and employees. I fear that the clause as it now stands may encourage the unscrupulous employer artificially to divide his company into separately owned organisations simply to defeat what would then become secondary action. To that extent, I am sympathetic to Amendment No. 12 and I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says on that point.
On the other hand, as I read it, subparagraph (ii) of the amendment would mean that, for example, an employer normally using one type of fuel for his operations might be debarred from making use of another to keep production going. I fear that that might lead to just the situation about which I am unhappy in the case of Amendment No. 11.
For those reasons—in some respects they are different, although they are largely the same—I have reservations about both Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I was a little intrigued to hear the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite so noticeably hankering after 1980. That is a good example of the backward-looking attitude which now appears to dominate the Labour Party. The noble

175
Lord seemed to think that everything in 1980 was all right and to ignore the experience of the 10 years that have passed.
He also sought to brush aside the Ford case. It is a great mistake to brush aside the Ford case. Not only did it directly damage our economy, it forfeited investment of many millions of pounds and deprived 1,000 men of jobs in an area where they are much required and probably affected another 1,000 men a year or two later. No government can ignore action of that kind—that is just one example—which can have such effects.
Therefore the Government are right to proceed as they have in respect of secondary action. This is all part of the general process of trade union legislation. The Government have proceeded—rightly, judging by results—by steps in that direction as they have done in so many others. Instead of provoking a crisis, as they probably would have done in the early 1980s, by wholesale and widespread legislative changes, they proceeded step by step in a way that carried public opinion with them and which contributed to the greatly improved atmosphere of industrial relations referred to earlier. One is happy to think that that is the fact. Therefore the general government tactic of step by step moves, of which this is quite a good example, has justified itself by the results.
Secondary action can be very unfair. Why should an employer who is not at all involved in a dispute be faced with the disruption of his work because his workers or the union that organises his workers is in dispute with a totally different employer over a totally different matter? It is grossly unfair to that employer who ex hypothesi has no quarrel at all with his employees or the union that he should be made to suffer simply because the union is trying to mobilise power in different directions against a totally different employer.
I have always thought that for that reason secondary action was one of the most unfair aspects of our system. For years I have thought it quite wrong that it should receive the cover from the law which it has received until now. Therefore I particularly welcome this clause and hope equally that the Committee will reject both these amendments.
Lord Strathclyde: The case for making changes to the provisions of the present Section 17 of the 1980 Act, which concerns immunity for threatening or organising secondary industrial action, was set out in the Green Paper Removing Barriers to Employment. Those proposals won solid support, and confirmed our belief that the time was right to revise the arrangements which were appropriate in 1980 but which clearly are no longer appropriate for the 1990s. The kind of point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, about my noble friend Lord Prior and the changes that have taken place since 1980 vividly demonstrates the degree to which the Labour Party is stuck in some kind of time warp in which the past assumes much greater importance than the present or the future. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for making that point so clearly. It
176
shows that the Opposition have no understanding of what the step by step approach to reform of industrial relations and trade union law in fact means.
An essential principle of that approach is to keep the relevant law under review and not be afraid to come forward with proposals to adapt the law to present-day circumstances and needs. That is what the Government did in the Green Paper and those proposals on secondary action won solid support. If there have been few cases in which trade unions have secured immunity for secondary industrial action since 1980, that is neither here nor there. The threats made by the TGWU and other unions to black the new plant proposed by Ford USA at Dundee clearly show the potential scope for damaging action against an employer who has no dispute with his own employees. That is the principle, which the Government now accept; that in the 1990s there is no case for trade unionists to have immunity for organising industrial action against employers who have no quarrel with their own workers.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said that he disagreed with the action that we took 10 years ago. Today, 10 years later, he says that maybe that was all right. Perhaps in 10 years' time he will say that what we are doing in 1990 is not so bad either.
Nothing in Clause 4 affects the ability of a union to call for primary industrial action; that is, action in contemplation or furtherance of a dispute between workers and their own employer. It will remove immunity where the call is for secondary action which is made other than in the course of peaceful picketing as the present law allows. I should add that nothing in Clause 4 affects the position of any worker who decides to take secondary action. We are dealing here with what the law should be in relation to threats or calls to take secondary action, whether made by a union or anybody else.
These amendments share a common theme. They seek to extend the scope of immunity for organising secondary action beyond that proposed by Clause 4 and in some cases beyond the scope of immunity allowed by present law. That simply confirms that the Opposition is committed to giving more scope for damaging and destructive secondary action. It is apparently quite content to see the action threatened against companies such as Ford USA if plans to establish new plant and bring new jobs happen to offend certain unions who are in a position to threaten secondary action to force their will on an employer who has no dispute with his own workforce.
The amendments also make reference to ballots. However, these are unnecessary because other legislation means that if a union is lawfully to call for industrial action it must always hold a properly conducted ballot before doing so. However, there can be no question of a ballot enabling a union to call for industrial action which is unacceptable in itself—for example, political action or action to enforce closed shop practices. It is perfectly proper for the law to set limits to immunity and remove it altogether where industrial action has unacceptable purposes.

177
Amendment No. 11 is apparently designed to reinstate the gateway to immunity for secondary action aimed at the first customer or first supplier of the employer in a primary dispute. It is broadly similar to the provisions of the present Section 17(3) of the 1980 Act. There is no case whatsoever for continuing to allow immunity for such action. As the Green Paper explained, it leaves scope for unnecessary uncertainty about whether or not any particular secondary action satisfies the gateway. What is more important, to continue to allow such a gateway runs counter to the principle that there should be no immunity for organising action against an employer who is not in dispute with his own workers.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to give scope for organising action against an employer who is associated with the employer in dispute or who has agreed to take over the supply of goods or services which would normally be supplied by the employer in dispute. Once again, to allow any such gateway is incompatible with the principle that there should be no immunity for organising action among workers who have no dispute with their own employer.
On the question of associated employers, there is simply no evidence that employers have or are in future likely to split up existing companies simply to reduce the scope for lawful industrial action. In this connection we have heard in the past about the purported reasons why Mr. Murdoch reorganised his newspaper business. I have to say that I am unconvinced that he was influenced to any significant extent by a desire to limit the scope for lawful secondary action to be organised against his enterprises. In any case, the reason why the unions were unable to bring effective pressure to bear on Mr. Murdoch to reinstate the print workers whom he had dismissed after they chose to take industrial action was simply that other workers refused to become involved in taking industrial action on their behalf. Moreover, the failure of the unions to ballot those workers about taking industrial action against their employer was far more significant than the issue of whether there could have been immunity for organising secondary action if there had been such ballots.
Similarly in respect of the Dimbleby case the fact is that the union targeted its industrial action so as to affect a company which had no dispute with its workers. In such circumstances there is no case for allowing immunity. In that case the union's action was unlawful under the present law and would rightly remain unlawful under the law as proposed in this clause.
To allow secondary action against employers who happen to offer to supply goods and services which would otherwise have been supplied by those in primary disputes with their own employer would represent a very significant extension of the scope for secondary action well beyond what is allowed by the present law. It hardly needs to be said that primary industrial action can damage the interests of innocent customers and suppliers. The most obvious result of
178
the amendment is that where that innocent customer or supplier tries to repair the damage that he has suffered by getting another employer, even more remote from the dispute, to supply him with the goods or services which the employer in the primary dispute would normally have supplied, industrial action could be organised against the other employer.
It is surely impossible to justify such a highly damaging result unless one believes that the commercial interest of innocent employers must always take second place to the desire of unions to make industrial action successful. I find it hard to believe that the Opposition wish to go that far.
If in such circumstances a union representing the workers of the alternative supplier wanted to call for industrial action by his workers in contemplation or furtherance of their own dispute with him, that could be lawful now, as it could be if Clause 4 is enacted. However, as I have made clear, it is very different and quite unacceptable to suggest that the union representing the workers involved in the primary dispute should be allowed to call for industrial action against employers who have no connection with that dispute.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, again made much of the ILO. I entirely agree with the words of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. We have heard enough of the ILO. I said at Second Reading—and I shall no doubt have to say it again—that the ILO has not condemned the present law and will not condemn Clause 4 as being incompatible with ILO conventions. At least the Government are very confident that nothing in our general employment law, or indeed within this Bill, is incompatible with any ILO convention that we have ratified. I cannot be more unequivocal than that on the ILO. I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree that.
No doubt they feel very strongly that these amendments should be accepted in whole or in part in order to modify the law on secondary action as it will stand by virtue of Clause 4 of the Bill. However, nothing that they have said gives grounds for rejecting the fundamental principle on which Clause 4 has been constructed: that there should be no immunity for organising industrial action by workers who have no dispute with their own employer. The amendments would create unwarranted scope for the kind of damaging and destructive secondary action which has been a blot on the industrial relations record of this country. Surely no responsible person would wish to allow such irresponsible industrial action to become rampant once again.
I hope therefore that, if these amendments are not withdrawn by noble Lords opposite, Members of the Committee will vote against them.
7 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I suppose that the Minister's speech will become known as the philippic contra Priorem because everything he said was a condemnation of the reasoning of 1980. Let me spend a moment on 1980. It is very amusing for the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to

179
condemn us for daring to look back to 1980. I was trying to find a common point of departure. It is somewhat difficult in these trade union matters. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, voted on the 1980 Employment Act. However, I see that he now regards the legislation as quite misguided.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Perhaps the noble Lord can appreciate that a measure may be perfectly appropriate at its time, but that does not mean that for the rest of eternity one has to accept it. I rather hope that the noble Lord believes in progress.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that enlightenment. I took his reasoning to be argument that he could have applied then since it had so little concrete social content. The Ford case was mentioned. I believe that Ministers in particular should be careful how they speak about the Ford case in view of the importance of multi-national investments. Perhaps it is not altogether wise, in view of the fact that Ford management know perfectly well what happened, to describe the situation as simply dealing with trade union obstruction. It was interesting that neither the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, nor the Minister explained to us, as I invited them to do, how it turned on secondary action. I accept that there were difficulties among trade unions. I shall be happy to discuss that on another occasion. But it is not a case to which this problem applies. Noble Lords did not refer to any other. This vast experience of 10 years which erupts into this enormous prohibition on secondary action produces no other cases except those that we might use. The Minister referred to Wapping and Murdoch. The Minister suggested that it does not matter that Murdoch divided his companies into at least six or seven subsidiary companies. I am quite willing to believe that there are always major objectives other than labour law objectives in setting up subsidiaries. Taxation is always to the fore. But it is odd and interesting that the effect—which is what matters—under the law as it was then of setting up subsidiary companies to deal with distribution and supplies separately meant that the possibilities of lawful industrial action were much reduced.
The Minister stated that in the Dimbleby case the trade union chose the wrong company as a target. Has he ever been in the position, when organising or consulting—as has been my position and that of my noble friend with regard to industrial action—of trying to find out just who is the employer of certain employees? There are some notable court judgments on the matter. In the Dimbleby case two subsidiaries within the group had the same directors, the same office, and the same shareholders. It is right that when it all came out in the light of day in your Lordships' Judicial Committee, hey presto, the union had chosen the wrong company. But what a crazy way to run a labour law system: that it should depend upon chance whether those employees were employed by a subsidiary other than the subsidiary the union thought was the party to the contract, and that this could be changed overnight.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It does not depend upon chance if you do away with secondary action. That is one of the reasons that I support the Government's decision to do away with it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord. He is absolutely right. That is the Government's position. They are not prepared to discuss the realities of a balanced and fair approach which allows something on the one hand and something on the other. That is why I took the initial point of the noble Lord, Lord Prior. It is not a policy on secondary action that I share. I made that clear at least three times. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, no doubt overlooked it. If one takes that point, and asks where is the balance, then one begins to wonder whether those fortuitous events which relate to which company has a subsidiary on this night and that day in that particular case can really be the proper test of rights.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I agree that the Ford case had nothing to do with secondary action. It was in essence a recognition dispute. Have the Benches opposite any proposals in amendments to deal with recognition disputes? If so, we can deal with that later. However, I still revert to the basic position. There is no bridge between us. I cannot see the justification for having secondary action against an employer who is not involved in the dispute, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, can.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate that the noble Lord and I are in that genuine difficulty. My noble friend will be moving a later amendment on the Marshalled List which is pertinent to recognition. I would not describe the issue as simply a recognition dispute. I think that he is much closer to the heart of the difficulties that occurred in Dundee than his noble friends.
Recognition is a problem. Once again, so far we have not been able to get the Government to see that there is a problem about recognition and employers who will not bargain with trade unions. However, I cannot feel that the noble Lord's intervention differs from the Minister's position in this respect. The Minister said that the Government were proceeding step by step and now they wanted to make it clear that industrial action should not be permitted other than in a dispute with the workers' own employer. The noble Lord shares that position.
Perhaps I can entice the noble Lord into the argument by the route that the Minister used. Workers have no control over who their employer is. If we are employed by X plc and the company suddenly decides to pass our section over to a subsidiary, which may improve our conditions of employment, our employer has changed. In ordinary commercial life that happens all the time. The noble Lord knows that. He has advised companies on changing their group structure for purposes quite unrelated to employment. Every time that happens a group of employees find themselves employed by a different employer.

181
The Minister should remember that workers have a common interest with other workers. It is as though an employer took over this Front Bench and said that now we were cut off from the Benches behind. We would not accept that. He should consider the point that such workers may well say to their employer that they are in dispute with him and will not handle his goods or have any relationship with him until they have terms and conditions of employment which allow them to co-ordinate. That point is as yet undecided. The Minister may well find that the clause generates litigation and problems of that kind. It is a difficult point and there is some authority on it, both ways; and there will be more.
All the Minister will do is simply proceed step by step to restrict the rights of workers in trade unions. I suppose that next year, if he is still there, he will do so again. He may try to restrict workers' rights to form even bigger trade unions. He may try to intervene more in their relations with employers as to how they finance themselves. He can tell us later in the evening if that is not so.
The Government proceed step by step because they do not believe that trade union organisation in the labour market as an effective force is desirable. Of course they do not; they believe in an individualised market. The Minister nods. In that case why not make primary strikes unlawful? There can only be expedient reasons for that. That is why the Government push aside the International Labour Organisation. I am genuinely surprised that the Minister said—I hope that I quote him correctly—that the ILO will not condemn Clause 4 of the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: I am confident that the ILO will not condemn Clause 4.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister is confident. He says that in the face of a number of facts, quite apart from the fact that the committee of experts has held the existing law on secondary action to be a contravention of the ILO convention. The committee of experts is not, as the noble Lords seem to think, a group of strange people who descend like gods in a machine to solve problems. It is a sizeable group of the most renowned jurists from every major contributing member country of the ILO. The Minister knows very well who our representative is. I doubt whether he would want to adopt such an attitude towards his judgments.
When the committee of experts says that this range of legislation is already a breach of the convention on freedom of association, the Government can do better than simply say that it is not. That is all they have ever said. They have never produced their reasons. We understand that they have given reasons to the committee but they will not release them because they are confidential. We hope that they will be published soon. In addition, the freedom of association committee, the entire body of the ILO from top to bottom, is of that view. The only thing that the Government have escaped so far is the condemnatory
182
paragraph which every member fears and which is never made public because the ILO is not that sort of club. It does not publish a condemnatory paragraph until a member has acted even more badly than this Government.
On that basis I wonder what will happen as a result of Clause 4. If one goes abroad and talks to people about labour law systems in Europe, one first has to make them believe that what is happening here really is happening. Secondly, when one goes back the next year one has to make them believe what else has happened. They find it very difficult to believe. I believe that the ILO will have some difficulty with this Bill. However, we shall leave it there and we shall see.
Lord Strathclyde: International comparisons are a red herring. It may well be instructive to know what happens overseas but no other country has the same framework of industrial relations and trade union law or the same industrial relations institutions and traditions. The Bill is concerned with getting the right framework for this country and not for a country overseas.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: In Italy we find that before legislation is introduced there is often considerable comparative debate. I believe that in Paris there is less since they are as confident as the Minister that they are right. That is not always very profitable. There is considerable comparative debate in Germany, and also now in Spain. In Germany and Holland, on the one hand, and in France, Italy and Spain, on the other, there are completely different industrial relations systems. But one does not find the same insular confidence which sweeps away comparisons. With a certain degree of humility they accept that there may be lessons to be learnt from looking at what other people do. However, one must not import measures from an alien industrial relations system. The Government's predecessors learnt that in 1971. It really will not do just to say that we are special and therefore we do not have to look at international standards. International standards matter. They matter to real working people. That is a point of reference which the international trade union movement has made. It is something that the Government should take into account. It is very hard to see Clause 4 as other than a further breach of the convention.
Perhaps I may say one further word about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I accept that some of the area is technical. I do not mind, and as a fellow member of the profession he should not mind, that it is legalistic. Being legalistic can sometimes be very good, especially if you win. I do not mind that I have made comparisons with other states, as I have explained. However, we on these Benches mind that this complex area of law has become very unfair and is being made more unfair by the Bill. It is not even true, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, suggested, that under our present law our strike record has been better than the rest. The figures arose in a previous debate. The rate of decline in days lost per thousand workers in the 1970s and the 1980s in almost

183
all Western European countries was much sharper than in Britain. The noble Lord said that our strike record was better. It was not.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord knows full well and far better than I, as a comparative jurist and a professor—I am neither—that those records—for example, for France—exclude a myriad of public sector strikes. I shall not go on to the case of Germany or Italy even though I could enter into the debate. Why not? Because I do not like to bore the Committee.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord and I read the same publications. There are problems with everyone's statistics. However, if the French produce statistics—as they do—only for the private sector, and if the noble Lord were to find, as he would, that the rate of decline in the French private sector is steeper than the rate of decline in our private sector, that is a point to be considered. The statistics in Germany and in Italy have their own problems. In some ways in Italy they are better.
Taking all the problems together, there is no way of avoiding that conclusion. If the noble Lord can avoid that conclusion, then perhaps he will explain that to me later. I do not regard that as a big point on this legislation. That is the most important aspect that Members of the Committee must understand. The important point about industrial conflict is that it is largely conditioned by economic and not legal factors. Legal factors are relevant, but the basic factors are economic.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, spoke about the drafting of our amendments and his fear that secondary action would go too far. However, he said also that he feared that secondary picketing would go too far. The issue of secondary picketing is not necessarily limited and constrained by precisely the same rubrics as secondary action. Secondary picketing does not appear in these amendments. I am happy to discuss that matter on another occasion because that is an interesting problem.
We shall not press these amendments to a vote. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, will not see his proposals put to a vote again; but perhaps it is better that we should not do so in that it seems that they may now be defeated by a House which supported them so solidly in 1980.
Let us have no doubt about the fact that the proposals contained in these amendments are only a very small part of the policy for dealing with the proper rights of working people balanced against the rights of their own employers and other employers and parties in society. They play a small part but they have provided a very useful testing point to see how extreme and extremist the Government are on this matter. The answer is positive. They are extreme and extremist and that will be their downfall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 13:
184
Page 4, line 38, leave out from ("done") to ("or") in line 43 and insert ("either—
(a) by workers who have taken part in a ballot which satisfies Part II of the Trade Union Act 1984 together with some or all of the workers who are party to the trade dispute in circumstances where subsection 1A of section 11 of that Act does not apply;").
The noble Lord said: The Minister explained that he will not accept any amendment allowing for secondary action other than Clause 4(3), if that be an exception. We are dealing with Section 17 of the Employment Act 1988 which my noble friend Lord McCarthy had the misfortune, during the time of those debates, to call the "gibberish clause". The Minister and I will have had time to work that out by now. That clause amended Section 11 of the 1984 Act. It said that where there were separate workplaces—and I shall put it very broadly—among those whom a union wished to call to a ballot and then perhaps to take industrial action, there must he separate ballots and separate majorities. That was inserted as a new Clause 1A of Section 11 of the 1984 Act.
Secondly, there came the major exception to the obligation to hold separate ballots of workers employed at one or more different workplaces. That exception applied where there was a common factor or at least where pairs of them had a common factor. I am afraid that the attempt to explain the "gibberish clause" in more ordinary language descends rapidly into similar case, but I shall do my best. They must have a common factor shared between pairs of them in the two workplaces and that common factor could relate to their terms and conditions of employment or to their occupational description.
The eventual code of practice on trade union ballots for industrial action states that that exception—that is, workers in different work places but who have a common factor linking them—would allow the union to ballot groups:
"whose votes can be aggregated forming a group consisting of (a) all of its members; (b) all of its members employed by one or more employers; or (c) members who share a common distinguishing factor".
Proposition (b) has been commented upon. That is not generally accepted as a statement of law properly derived from the Act, but never mind. Therefore, there is a situation in which the Government's own commentary on the 1988 amendments to the 1984 Act states that a union may ballot in one single ballot all of its members employed by one or more employers or members who share a common distinguishing factor.
Therefore, the Government offer a test of common interest. The test of direct common interest is laid down for us in terms of ballots. On those matters we may all vote together even though we are in different workplaces where there is a common factor and where, according to the code, all the union members are employed by one or more employers and are in the group which is being balloted. Through this amendment we say as shortly as is possible that if you are allowed to vote together, then you must be allowed to act together. We know from the Government's commentary that the case can be covered of workers employed by one or more employer, as I read from the

185
code. That meets a general test which in British conditions is a reasonable starting point. We are aware that this amendment needs looking at in terms of one or two technical points. However, we tried to keep it as short as possible in order to raise the general principle.
Curiously enough, that principle was invented by the Government. Despite what my noble friend says, when one looks at it long and hard it ceases to be gibberish and makes a kind of sense. The principle in it is that if people are covered by the same bargaining unit and the same bargaining collective agreement, it is crazy to have separate workplace ballots with separate majorities. We heard at the time of the 1988 Act that that was the intention behind the Government's exception. That may be why Section 17 of the 1988 Act has not caused more difficulty than it has.
We then say that it must be right that when it is said that there is no more secondary action, that group should be allowed to say, "Although we may be employed by more than one employer, we can ballot together and so surely there must be an area in which we can act together". It would be remarkable to say to union members that a ballot can be held of all its members at once, a majority vote is obtained but then action can only be taken by those employed by employer A and not those employed by employer B just across the road.
With those remarks, I hope that the Minister can tell us a little more about what was in the Government's mind in that connection. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment seeks to extend the scope of immunity for organising secondary action beyond that proposed by Clause 4 and beyond the scope of immunity allowed by the present law. That is what I understand the amendment to mean.
It also makes reference to ballots. However, there can be no question of a ballot enabling a union to call for industrial action which is unacceptable in itself; for example, political action or action to enforce closed shop practices. It is perfectly proper for the law to set limits to immunity, and to remove it altogether where industrial action has unacceptable purposes.
The same principle applies in respect of secondary action. There should be no immunity for organising industrial action against an employer not in a dispute with his own workers. But that is what the amendment would allow.
The amendment seeks to remove from Clause 4 the provisions which will allow immunity for calls to take industrial action which are made in the course of peaceful picketing. The present law allows immunity for such calls.
Paragraph 3.11 of the Green Paper, Removing Barriers to Employment, explained why this was necessary. For example, a worker employed by an employer not party to a dispute may be called upon by peaceful pickets not to deliver goods to an employer who is in dispute with his workers. The peaceful pickets may, by doing this, be calling on him to
186
interfere with the performance of his contract of employment. However, not to allow such a call to have immunity would risk rendering peaceful picketing impossible, and that is no part of the purpose of Clause 4. However, that is far from giving any sort of licence to picketing which is not peaceful, or which takes place other than at the picket's own place of work.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If the Minister is passing to something else, perhaps I could deal with one point. With respect, our amendment may mislead by being curiously labelled paragraph (a). The clause would read:
"Secondary action satisfies the requirements of this section only if it is done … (a) by workers who have taken part in a ballot … or (b)".
The original paragraphs (a) and (b) would still be included. The amendment does not delete lines 40 to 45. I say that to clarify the point.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. In that case perhaps I can return to ballots and Section 17 of the 1988 Act which allows aggregation of votes as the noble Lord described, but only where all the workers are in dispute with their own employers. If there are 20 employees in dispute then their action will be primary action and nothing in Clause 4 will make their action unlawful.
I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord any further comfort. The amendment seems to be incompatible with the principles underlying Clause 4 and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister makes a good and correct point that the amendment is inconsistent with the spirit and meaning of the clause. But the clause is so absolutist—to use the word again—that any amendment that does not make it more extreme is against the spirit of it.
I understand that the Government will not accept the amendment. I do not feel that the Minister has answered the reasoning that where we can all vote together there is some rational ground for saying that we should be allowed to take action together. I shall look carefully in Hansard at what he has said regarding which workers can be included in a ballot. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill be resumed at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
7.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord MacKay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord MacKay of Clashfern) rose to move, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved—[21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name relates to the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 which extend the scope of the Assistance by Way of Representation (ABWOR) Scheme to cover appeals against closure orders made under Section 10A of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and to include the remaining cases under the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960. Unlike the green form, which is generally available unless excluded by regulations, ABWOR is only available to the extent the regulations provide. These draft regulations before us today specify two areas where ABWOR will now be available if they are approved.
The Statutory Instrument rectifies an omission from the last ABWOR regulations made in March 1989. Inadvertently the reference to the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 was left out of the 1989 regulations. I am grateful to the Law Society for pointing out that, although the 1960 Act has been repealed—which was a ground for taking out the reference—applications for variation of orders under that Act may still be made. ABWOR has always been available for these proceedings and no change of policy has been intended. This amendment now restores the position.
The extension to appeals under Section 10A of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 is, however, new. The Act was amended in 1987 to give fire officers the power to order the immediate closure of multi-occupation buildings where there is a serious risk to safety. This means that fire authorities now have the power to make closure orders against the occupiers of a building including domestic tenants. The effect of an order is to force the tenants to leave the closed premises immediately. Failure to do so can be punished by a fine or imprisonment. Appeal against a closure order lies to the magistrates' court.
As I have explained, ABWOR is only available in specific proceedings if regulations so provide. No regulations were made for this purpose in 1987. I believe that this was because it was not then contemplated that the powers in the Act would be used directly in respect of domestic tenants as opposed to the landlord of the premises in question. The first case involving domestic tenants has only recently come before the court. Since a tenant in this situation may be at risk either of losing his home or of incurring a fine or imprisonment for non-compliance with an order, it is clearly right that provision for legal assistance should be available where necessary. The amendment to the regulations will have that effect.
I am grateful to the learned judge who presided in that case for pointing out that in his view this was a clear case in which legal aid should be available. I hasten to accept his advice and this particular part of the regulations has come forward accordingly. These are important yet brief extensions of the scope of the scheme. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as always the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the clarity with which he explained these draft regulations. For the benefit of noble Lords who heard the word "ABWOR" and wondered what it meant, perhaps I may explain that it is an abbreviation for "Assistance by Way of Representation". I am sure that all noble Lords present knew that perfectly well, but I thought I should explain that I knew it also.
The noble and learned Lord would be disappointed if, after saying that these regulations are very proper and that we should approve them this evening, I did not take the opportunity briefly to remind him and the House of the great need that there is For ABWOR—if I may use that extraordinary abbreviation again—in matters of great social need.
The noble and learned Lord will not be surprised if I at once refer to appearances before the Social Security Commission. In almost all cases the Government are represented by the legal department of the Ministry. But the legal aid for the people who come before that commission—who are usually people in great need to whom the decision that is to be made is of great import—does not extend to representation for them.
I conclude by mentioning another group of people. They are the people who appear before the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. Those are matters not necessarily of life and death, but certainly matters where life will either be improved or made very miserable. It may be a question of joinder of families, or whatever, before the appeals tribunal in the vital matter of immigration but there is no right of representation through legal aid.
As I said, the noble and learned Lord will not be surprised that I mention those two priorities. I could mention others but, acceding to his request that the House pass the regulations, I ask him not to forget the two I have cited. I express the hope that it will not be too long before we hear that the noble and learned Lord is bringing forward regulations to cover those matters.
With those words, we on these Benches certainly approve of the regulations which the noble and learned Lord has brought before the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for supporting my Motion. Of course, I would be delighted to be in a position to extend legal aid further than it presently extends and perhaps the first area that he mentioned is an important priority in that connection.

189
However, I have to say that this depends on resources being made available. The level of resources that the present legal aid scheme takes is high and each year becomes higher. I have looked, with assistance, at the present scheme to see whether some of the money presently available could be used in other ways as suggested by the noble Lord. So far I have not seen any way of accommodating more within the level of expenditure that we have.
Your Lordships know that I am looking generally at eligibility, not behind closed doors, as some professional bodies would say, but with very open doors. I am extremely anxious to have any good suggestions that may be made. I particularly welcome suggestions which might help us to improve the structure of the present system in such a way as to accommodate more within it but without an undue increase in resources. With those words, I commend the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.43 to 8.35 p.m.]

Employment Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Irrespective of anything contained in a procedural and collective bargaining agreement, an employer may not unilaterally revoke such an agreement unless and until a majority of employees in the relevant bargaining unit have indicated their support for revocation in an independently conducted ballot.
The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, draw up regulations under which such ballots shall be conducted.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to situations in which employers seek unilaterally to revoke procedure and collective bargaining agreements with unions. The main purpose and reason why people join unions is in order to have some influence on their working terms and conditions. For most people it is totally unrealistic to imagine that the employment contract is one negotiated between equals. Except in conditions of extreme labour shortage the employer has everything on his side.
Unions were developed in order to try to redress the balance so that employees collectively might have some means of exerting pressure in order to maintain or improve terms and conditions. That is why simply belonging to a union, and having the right to belong, is not enough on its own. The union needs to be able to bargain collectively on behalf of its members. In order to do that it normally needs a recognition and procedure agreement.
In this amendment we are not seeking to put forward some kind of mechanism for recognition though it is the view of my party, with which I concur, that there should be some kind of statutory mechanism by which unions can achieve recognition if they are representative enough. However, this amendment tries to deal with the situation where an agreement that has been in existence for some time is about to be revoked. In recent years a number of employers have interpreted the Government's continued attack on union rights, with very little counterbalance in the area of employer responsibilities, as meaning that the Government are anti-union. That is hardly surprising considering some of the language used in a number of government publications.
In certain instances such employers have simply withdrawn recognition in situations where they may have recognised the union for a very long time. The reason sometimes given is that they believe the union is no longer representative; that too few employees belong or support the union and therefore the company as a whole would be better off without union recognition. That is what is said sometimes. It often conceals a wish to introduce different and often worse terms and conditions, but management feels that it cannot do that if it has to negotiate with the union.
The amendment proposes that management should not be able to take this action without a test of employee opinion. If the Government are really so keen on ballots, why do they not take the principle a stage further into the realm of employment itself? Why should the employer terminate a recognition and procedure agreement if the employees want it to continue? What redress do employees have when that happens? At present ACAS is unable to help, though in my experience its officials are often keen to do so. They normally advocate against jettisoning an agreement. Why not let the employees themselves decide? Why should the employer have autocratic powers? Apart from coming out on strike, why should the only remedy be to leave a working environment with which, until then, one has been satisfied? Since the Government are in favour of ballots I await the response to this amendment with interest. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My difficulty with this amendment is that it clearly means that it would no longer be possible, except with the consent in a ballot of the majority of employees in a relevant bargaining unit, for an employer after due notice to withdraw from a procedural and collective bargaining agreement. Surely it should always be open to both parties to such an agreement to do just that. I sympathise very much with the case presented by the noble Baroness, but not so much that I feel able to subscribe to the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I feel that the arrangements proposed by the amendment are neither necessary nor desirable.
First, it must be right to leave it to the parties directly involved in collective bargaining—unions and employers—to decide for themselves if they wish to

191
establish or continue such arrangements. Employers must be free to decide for themselves whether they wish to recognise any union, and whether they wish to bargain collectively on any matter.
Secondly, in this country employers and unions do not choose to make collective agreements which are legally enforceable between them. In such circumstances, it would be quite inequitable to seek to impose on one party—the employer—special requirements which had to be satisfied before he could withdraw from a collective agreement which both parties had voluntarily entered into.
Thirdly, the amendment is also unnecessary in so far as it aims to "protect" individual employees whose own terms and conditions are determined (wholly or in part) by the terms of collective agreements. To the extent that this applies, an employer cannot modify the terms of individual employment contracts except as the law allows—which may involve giving sufficient notice or intent to end any such contract. An employee whose employer breaches the terms of his contract has a remedy through the normal civil law as it applies to such breaches of contract.
Finally, I have to say that in so far as the particular arrangements envisaged in this amendment would mean giving ACAS some kind of role in operating the "independently conducted ballots" which are mentioned, that would risk damaging the high reputation of ACAS. ACAS would surely become, as it was at the time when we still had the unworkable arrangements concerning statutory recognition rights, enmeshed in intrusive interference in a way which could only have this effect. I cannot believe that there is any case for running such a risk.
The noble Baroness alluded to the fact that employees had rarely successfully claimed against their employers when there had been a breach of contract. However, there are many examples where precisely that has happened. For example, there are the cases of Rigby v. Ferodo, Keir and Williams v. County Council of Hereford and Worcester, R. F. Hill Ltd. v. Mooney. There are many others.
Any attempt to impose any kind of arrangements along the lines of those proposed in this amendment could only damage good industrial relations. Whatever role there could be for such a system where legally enforceable collective agreements were the norm, it could play no useful role in this country. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not altogether surprised by the noble Lord's response to this modest amendment. Although the Government have said that they are all in favour of ballots, they appear to be in favour of them only within unions and not in relation to employment itself which is what concerns most people belonging to trade unions. People belong to unions in order to protect their conditions in relation to their employer and not in relation to the union to which they voluntarily belong.
I cannot accept what the Government have said as being at all reasonable in the circumstances. If they did
192
not like the wording of my amendment, it would have been possible for them at least to accept the principle and to say that they would come back at Report stage. They have not done so. I do not accept what the Minister has said about involving ACAS in a consultative role. That is entirely appropriate given what ACAS has to do and the context in which it operates.
Of course it is right that procedural agreements in this country are not legally enforceable. But we are not talking about a legally enforceable contract. We are talking about circumstances where the Government have decided to revoke a non-legally enforceable contract—in other words, to take away a right which people already have. We wish to give those people who hitherto have been covered by that right the opportunity to vote on whether or not it should continue to obtain in their employment. It has nothing to do with terms and conditions of employment. It concerns simply the procedural arrangements. Those are quite different from the substantive agreements undertaken under those procedural arrangements which then cover terms and conditions of employment. What the Minister is talking about when he mentions terms and what people are paid, and so on, has nothing to do with this amendment or indeed with procedural agreements generally.
However, having said that, I do not intend at this stage to divide the Committee. I shall consider what the Minister has said to see whether or not I should come back with something different at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert:
("(4A) Notwithstanding subsection (4) above, for the purposes of this section an employer who is a member of an employers' association which is a party to a trade dispute shall be regarded by virtue of his membership as a party to the dispute if he is represented by the association in the dispute, but not otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: The words of the amendment are taken from Section 17(7) of the Employment Act 1980. At the risk of being accused of looking backwards, I feel that I should make that clear. The subsection provides quite reasonably that where an employer is a member of an employers' association, he shall be regarded by virtue of his membership of the association as a party to a dispute in which it is engaged if he is represented by the association in the dispute, but not otherwise. That subsection has always seemed quite reasonable. It is matched, as the recent judgments in the docks strike case made clear, on the union side by the union representing its members in a dispute, although not necessarily on the basis of agency, as parties to the dispute. There has been no suggestion in the case law that the provision is oppressive. If one gives a mandate to certain people to negotiate for you, you expect to be bound by that action, so why do the Government wish to change the

193
law? They are repealing Section 17 and with it this provision. Do they mean to change the law, or do they say that the law is as the subsection stated without the subsection? It has never been made clear. It is important for us to understand the Government's intentions on this matter before we go further. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: This amendment, like the others tabled by the Opposition, seeks to extend the scope of immunity for organising secondary action beyond that proposed by Clause 4, and beyond the scope of immunity allowed by the present law.
That simply confirms that the Opposition are committed to giving more scope for damaging and disruptive secondary action. In this case, however, the amendment may also be based on something of a misunderstanding, if I have understood the noble Lord.
Among the other changes made to the law on immunity for organising secondary action in the present Section 17 of the 1980 Act by virtue of its replacement by Clause 4, the provisions of Section 17(7) which concern the situation of employers who are members of an employers' association are to be removed.
Clause 4(4) in fact takes account of changes made by Section 18 of the Employment Act 1982 on the terms of Section 17(7) of the 1980 Act. Prior to the 1982 Act, Section 17(7) had the effect of ensuring that members of an employers' association were not to be treated as parties to a trade dispute merely because the association to which they belonged was such a party. After the 1982 Act, Section 17(7) in fact had a different effect, and made members of an employers' association represented by it in the dispute parties to that dispute for the purposes of secondary action, when otherwise they would not be parties.
Clause 4 corrects this anomaly. The Government's policy is that where there is a dispute between a member of an employer's association and his workers, the fact that the association is a party to that dispute should not have the consequence that any other members of the association would fall to be treated as parties. Clause 4(4) removes that area of doubt and secures the intended policy result. On the other hand, the amendment appears to recreate that anomaly. Accordingly, Amendment No. 15 is incompatible with the terms of Clause 4 and with the principles upon which it is based. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It was always my intention to withdraw the amendment. However, I must say that the Minister's explanation has not made it easier for me to do so. Indeed, I could not recognise the juridical history which he put forward. That was perhaps due to my inability to follow the speed with which he delivered his speech. I shall have to read what he said in Hansard.
I always understood that subsection (7), despite the 1982 Act, still provides very broadly to make an employer a party to a dispute where he was
194
represented by the association in it. I did not think that the 1982 Act had denied that proposition. We see that it is the Government's intention, once again, to narrow the area in which employers can be parties to the dispute. That is the critical feature once one removes all gateways to legality for any type of secondary action. The Minister has certainly given me that broad lesson. I shall read the details of what he said in Hansard tomorrow. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert ("whether or not that act relates also to the dispute in contemplation or furtherance of which the secondary action is done.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17 which deals with the same point but in a slightly different way. It concerns the genuine difficulty which we have; namely, accepting the Government's policy for the moment—and for what is left of their time—and looking at the clause as it stands.
For the first time the clause, very helpfully, introduces the concept of a primary dispute as a legal term. It is referred to as "primary action". That means that we now have both primary and secondary action as terms of art. The basic distinction is that in primary action the employer is party to a dispute with his own employees. In subsections (4) and (5), this distinction is spelt out, especially in the latter subsection where in the second paragraph "primary action" is said to be the action mentioned in subsection (2),
"where the employer under the contract of employment is the employer party to the dispute".
The first paragraph of that subsection reads:
"An act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which is primary action in relation to that dispute may not be relied upon as secondary action in relation to another trade dispute".
Therefore so far, so good. However, we worry that it would be possible for the courts to be in difficulty in a situation where disputes overlap. We have this point especially in mind because we believe that there are situations in which the interests of employees employed by different employers overlap but which also include different features peculiar to each group. Where the subject matter of the dispute overlaps, the objective of the Government appears to be that that dispute, under subsection (5), would be excluded as being secondary action.
However, one wonders whether in terms of an overlap the court may say "Yes, it is primary action; but it has a relationship". Again, the words in subsection (5) are very important. They read:
"An act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which is primary action in relation to that dispute may not be relied on as secondary action in relation to another trade dispute".
The court may say, "It is so closely intertwined that it is obviously the objective of those organising the second part of industrial action that it should be a main or possibly the major objective to assist the

195
first". If it is the Government's intention to exclude the possibility of such a finding, we think that an amendment is needed. I suggest to the Minister that he should look especially at Amendment No. 17, and in particular to the closing words which speak of the
"relationship between such an employer and the employer party to that dispute".
It is a question of whether the Government have any chink open in their mind on this matter. Perhaps the Minister will be able to show me that my fears are unfounded. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Before I comment on these two amendments, it would be helpful if I explained the purpose and the effect of the subsection in Clause 4 which they seek to modify. Subsection (5) ensures that where workers take primary action in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute with their own employer, that cannot be held to be secondary action simply because looked at from the point of view of another employer it has secondary effects. For example, if a primary dispute closed a factory one result might be—albeit as a by-product—to cut off supplies to another employer who was also involved in a different dispute with his own workers.
The first limb of Clause 4(5) therefore protects such primary action. It will be for the courts to determine, where relevant proceedings are brought before them, whether any particular call to take industrial action is primary or secondary. But Clause 4(5) ensures that genuine primary action will not fall foul of the provisions intended to prevent secondary action.
The second limb of Clause 4(5) provides what is, in effect, the only appropriate interpretation of primary action for the purposes of the clause. That is to say, action where the employer under any contract which would be affected by the action is the employer party to the dispute.
These amendments attempt to modify the provisions of Clause 4(5). However, they are inappropriate, and contrary to the intended effects of the clause as it stands.
Amendment No. 16 appears to be intended to produce the result that if action is primary in nature to any extent at all, then it is to be treated as primary action even if it is predominantly secondary in nature. That is simply unacceptable. In circumstances where it may be arguable that industrial action has been organised in contemplation of one dispute or another or, perhaps, both, it should be for the court to determine which dispute the organisers were contemplating or furthering according to normal principles. The issue is no different from the issue which could have confronted the courts at any time since the Trade Disputes Act 1906 as to whether organisation of particular industrial action had the benefit of the trade dispute immunities when it might possibly have been organised to further a dispute which was not a trade dispute.
This is even more readily apparent in the case of Amendment No. 17. The change this proposes to the second limb of Clause 4(5) would mean that action which would fall to be treated as secondary action
196
would, in fact, become primary action if it happened to be about some relationship between two different employers. There is no justification, and no need, for any such provision.
I feel that these amendments would confuse and subvert the intended effects of Clause 4. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will read what I have said in Hansard and that he will, in the meantime, feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My students would say that I often confuse, but that I never intend to subvert. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation on the matter. However, his reply disclosed one rather important issue. I believe that he said that where there was a trade dispute with one's own employer that would be primary action so long as it predominantly related to that dispute. Predominantly is a very important word. However, it is not exactly what the second paragraph of subsection (5) says. It reads:
"Primary action means such action as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) where the employer under the contract of employment is the employer party to the dispute".
There is no questioning that wording. If we look back to subsection (2) it says:
"There is secondary action in relation to a trade dispute when, and only when",
it induces a breach of the contract of employment, and so on.
The Minister said that it must not only be in relation to the trade dispute, but that it must be predominantly in relation to it. I hope that he will take the matter away and discuss it further. It is simply a matter of avoiding litigation. I appreciate the fact that these matters are more easily understood when set out on paper than in debate. But if the Government wish to tie the matter down in the way indicated in his speech by using the word predominant as part of the test of establishing primary action, they should really consider including the word in the legislation at the next stage. It is not so at the moment. Our amendments may not be helpful. The Minister will not allow himself to be helped by them; I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: We now come to a discussion of Clause 4 as a whole. I oppose the Motion that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. We have attempted to amend the clause. As has been said, it removes immunity in tort from all secondary action—I prefer to call it sympathy action—other than that arising during the course of peaceful picketing by workers at their own place of work.
In making those proposals, the Government are departing from their earlier philosophy, enunciated by their then Secretary of State for Employment, the noble Lord, Lord Prior. When dealing with previous amendments my noble friend Lord Wedderburn spelt out in great detail what was involved. Back in 1980,

197
the noble Lord, Lord Prior, identified, as we have seen, two gateways to legality. I make no apology for repeating the argument. I believe that it is important.
Action taken against a first customer or supplier, or an associated employer, fell within the scope of the immunities found in Section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. According to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, those two gateways to legality were necessary if the freedom to strike were not to be rendered illusory. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who, I am sorry to say, is not now in his place, asked whether that meant that we supported the 1980 Act. We do not, but we believe that it is better than what is proposed in the Bill, because the Government have now abandoned that philosophy. It will now be possible for an employer merely to split up his operation into several so-called subsidiary companies and to transfer work to one of them when facing a dispute at a particular company.
The union will not be able to match that action by starting a dispute at the site at which the work has been transferred even if it legitimises that action by a ballot of the workforce. Surely that cannot be regarded as even-handed. It blatantly favours the employer at the expense of the workers.
I have never understood why the Government should apparently regard sympathy action as so discreditable. On the contrary, as I said on Second Reading and again this afternoon, it has the merit of being disinterested and unselfish. If workers are prepared to give assistance to colleagues who are indirectly involved it is because they understand that their colleagues' battle could be their battle the following day, especially as under the propositions contained in the Bill the company could well be the same company but diversified to prevent the union exercising full leverage.
There can be serious questioning of whether the proposals are compatible with the United Kingdom's international obligations under the ILO Convention No. 87. I make no apology for referring again to the ILO. We should not hold the ILO in contempt. It has already ruled that the Government have introduced unacceptable restrictions on the right to strike, and further legislation cannot therefore be justified. The ILO committee of experts has observed that secondary action is protected by Convention No. 87, especially where the action,
"relates directly to the social and economic interests of the workers involved in either, or both, the original dispute or the secondary action, and where the original dispute and the secondary action are not unlawful in themselves".
I cannot agree with Members of the Committee opposite that we can disregard ILO conventions. At one time the United Kingdom government were in the forefront of progressive legislation and support for international standards. We cannot abandon international standards. We are becoming increasingly out of step with other countries in Europe. No other country in Western Europe prohibits sympathy action in all circumstances. In Belgium sympathy strikes are lawful; in France sympathy strikes for political
198
reasons are not lawful, but such disputes with an occupational or professional aim are; in the Netherlands the right to strike is virtually unlimited except where manifestly unreasonable; in Denmark sympathy strikes are permissible where there is a reasonable degree of interest between the two groups concerned; and in Germany, where the restrictions are the most tight, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, there are industry-wide collective agreements, and workers are held to have an interest if covered by the same collective agreement.
The picture throughout Europe is that we have the most restrictions. The position will be even worse if these provisions are carried. I repeat, I do not believe that the Government can go on ignoring European practice indefinitely. Nor does there seem to be any pressing need for the provision in the Bill based on United Kingdom industrial experience. I was told recently by the CBI that when asked about obstacles to competitiveness in the run-up to 1992 its member firms did not include industrial relations in the United Kingdom as one of the obstacles. They all identified the lack of an appropriately skilled workforce and the low educational attainments of many school leavers as the prime cause for our lagging behind when it comes to competition with the rest of Europe.
In response to the Motion, could we please not have reference yet again to Fords at Dundee? I repeat again that we are not talking about secondary action. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was correct when he said that the issue was basically one of recognition. If we had a fair and reasonable way of settling such issues, the problem would not have occurred; but the Government abandoned the provisions of the Employment Protection Act in that regard and have not replaced them with anything else. Incidentally, I am surprised that Members opposite, in view of the Government's alleged concern for individuals and individual choice, are apparently prepared to favour arrangements where union officials reach agreements with managements about who should represent the workforce before a brick has been laid and a worker appointed. What employee choice is involved in that? We are dealing with another of the Government's ideological obsessions about unions. They seem to believe that another helping of anti-union legislation will assist them to win the next election. I hope that we shall prove them wrong if that is their objective. This clause—unhelpful, unnecessary and desperately unfair—should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Rochester: I am in something of a dilemma concerning the Motion of the noble Baroness that Clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill. The Committee may recall that at an earlier stage I felt obliged to oppose or any rate not to support—which I suppose amounts to the same thing—either Amendment No. 11 or Amendment No. 12, two of the main amendments concerning secondary action under the clause. On the other hand, I very much agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that there should be even-handedness between employers and employees.

199
The Minister did not altogether succeed in dispelling the fear that I expressed earlier: that the clause may encourage the unscrupulous employer artificially to divide his company into separately owned organisations, simply to defeat what would then become secondary action. Therefore if the noble Baroness presses her Motion to a Division, I am afraid that I shall not be able to support the Government.
Lord Renton: I am sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, say that. From time to time during the past 10 years he and his party and we on this side have agreed that what should be done on behalf of the members of the trade unions, in accordance with their wishes, and what should be done in the national interest are matters on which our views have coincided.
I was surprised by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. She seemed to be going back many years in the views that she put forward. It has sometimes seemed to many of us on our side, and to members of the public, that the Labour Party have considered it more important to try to follow the maxim, "Workers of the world unite!" and do whatever a minority dictated, than to follow the maxim that in the case of each trade union and each strike we should act according to the wishes of the members and try to safeguard the national interest.
Clause 4 acknowledges the right to strike so long as reasonable provisions laid down by Parliament are observed. We must make up our minds. Should we say that the wishes of the members of a union are to be paramount together with the national interest? Or should we follow the wishes and sometimes the dictates of trade union leaders in other unions which have a strong influence on the union which may be striking? Are they to have the right to carry the dispute into fields with which the members of the union are not concerned?
Clause 4 should always ring a bell in the minds of Members of the Committee opposite—even though in another context! I should have thought that this Clause 4 dealing with secondary action has got it right. It is the next stage in ensuring that the wishes of the members of the unions principally concerned in the dispute should override the purely party political interests of other unions or of the Labour movement as a whole. That may conflict with the national interest. So despite the strong feelings and opinions of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and, I was sorry to note, the views of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I hope that the Government will stick to their guns on this Clause 4.
Lord Strathclyde: Clause 4 of the Bill removes immunity for organising or threatening to organise secondary industrial action. It thereby establishes the principle that an employer should have a remedy if he is threatened with industrial action even though he is not a party to a trade dispute. The only exception is to be for inducing secondary action in the course of peaceful picketing as the current law allows. The clause makes no change to the legal liability of anyone taking part in industrial action as my noble friend Lord Renton explained. Its terms are relevant to the
200
legal liability of those persons or bodies who call for or threaten to call for secondary action. Nor does it affect immunity for organising primary action—a dispute between workers and their own employer.
Perhaps the most important justification for the clause is the simple point of principle that no employer should be at risk of having industrial action organised against him if he is not party to a trade dispute. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, explained at some length how the ILO had found the Government guilty of all kinds of transgression against what is fair, right and proper. I hope that this is the last time we shall hear about the ILO—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Strathclyde: If that is the case, must say yet again that the Opposition are not giving all the facts. It is untrue that the ILO has condemned the present law. It is equally untrue to suggest that the ILO has yet condemned Clause 4, as drafted. We have every reason to believe that that body will not condemn Clause 4. However, what is true—
9.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: If I may say—
Lord Strathclyde: I hope the noble Lord will let me finish what I have to say. The whole point is that we never reach the end of the story on the ILO. Let us get the position absolutely right. Last summer an ILO advisory committee made an observation on aspects of UK compliance with ILO Convention No. 87. There was absolutely nothing extraordinary about that. The very same committee, in its report, queried aspects of the law in various European countries. There is nothing wrong with that. A process of dialogue between that kind of committee and the governments of member countries of the ILO is quite normal. The United Kingdom Government have responded to the committee's observations. However, as is always the case, the response was given to the ILO in confidence. Members of the Committee opposite know that.
Finally, it is significant that the TUC subsequently withdrew the complaints it made to the ILO advisory committee after it issued its 1989 report. Clearly, the TUC had no confidence that the ILO would uphold its complaints. I wish that Members of the Committee opposite would stop going on about the ILO.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord has not quite sat down. I found his intervention most helpful. It is perfectly true that the committee of experts has also raised the matter of contraventions of the convention with the German Government, the Government of the Netherlands and, I believe, the Government of Greece. Is the Minister aware that the Government of the Netherlands—I understand that this is also true of the German Government according to a report which I recently read—have entered into a constructive dialogue with the committee to try to reduce the incidence of contraventions in their legislation? Without disclosing the confidential communication to the committee, will the Minister assure us that this Government have also entered into

201
a constructive dialogue with the committee to bring our legislation into conformity with the convention, as those other governments have promised to do?
Lord Strathclyde: As I understand the position, as the TUC has withdrawn its complaints to the ILO, there is simply no need to have any constructive negotiations because there are no complaints to discuss. No doubt we shall enjoy some more debates on the ILO as the Committee continues on its course through the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, talked about Ford USA in relation to Dundee. The behaviour of the TGWU in response to the plans of Ford to set up a plant at Dundee illustrated the potential scope, through blacking, for lawful organisation of targeted secondary action, and the damage that such action might cause to new firms and to overseas investment in this country. The noble Baroness cannot deny that that is the case. There may well have been an argument about recognition, but there was still that threat to do untold damage to inward investment in this country. As a result, 1,000 jobs were lost in Dundee.
Lord McCarthy: When the noble Lord says that the potential for damage was there, what he means is that it was not actually there.
Lord Strathclyde: That is purely an argument of semantics. We have now got rid of that potential. If Members of the Committee opposite support that kind of action, it is entirely a matter for them. Perhaps they do not go to Dundee very often. I do. It is difficult to talk to the people of Dundee on this issue following the loss of the Ford plant.
This clause will give an employer a remedy against attempts to organise industrial action against him even though he is not in dispute with his own workers. It is much more straightforward than the provisions of Section 17 of the 1980 Act. It reflects the essence of a worker's real employment relationship; that is, his relationship with his own employer.
I suggest that the real reason that the Labour Party is opposed to this clause—I regret the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, does not agree with the Government's position on the clause as he has agreed with us throughout our discussions—
Lord Renton: Does my noble friend recollect that in earlier debates on this vital question of secondary action the Liberal Party in those days made common cause with us?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has done so again today, so I am not sure why he has decided that Clause 4 should be opposed.
Lord Rochester: I thought that I had made my position absolutely plain. The noble Lord had not altogether dispelled my fear that, in order to escape, employers in that situation might seek to set up separate companies in order to defeat what would then become secondary action. Noble Lords opposite may disagree, but I am entitled to express that view which I consider to be important. In effect, I have supported the Government on a number of
202
amendments. I did not feel able to support them on that point and I cannot therefore conscientiously support the clause in total.
Lord Strathclyde: That is an entirely reasonable position for the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, to take. However, he will admit that there is no evidence to suggest that any employer ever has gone or ever will go to all the sweat of setting up separate companies so as to create what would now be illegal secondary action, whereas, by supporting the socialists and opposing the clause, he allows such things as the blacking of Ford USA, Dundee to occur. We have seen the threat and potential disaster that that has caused.
The Labour Party opposes the clause because its union paymasters do not like the constraints that the present law places on their ability to threaten industrial action in the hope or expectation of regaining the positions of unrestrained power and undeserved influence that they once enjoyed. There is a saving grace: the British public will be left in no doubt that the Labour Party is, has always been and is determined to remain the party of the bully-boy's charter and the flying picket. I recommend that the clause stand part.
Lord Rochester: Before the noble Lord sits down and if the Chairman will allow me, I want to make my position plain on one other point. The noble Lord said that in this I was supporting the Labour Party. I am not supporting the Labour Party. I did not say that I would vote with the Labour Party. I said that I did not find it possible to vote with the Government.
9.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Division called.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): The Question is, That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
In the absence of any Lord to say "Not-Content" at the second Question, I declare that the Contents have it.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Industrial Action
In this Act, the Employment Act 1982, the Trade Union Act 1984, the Employment Act 1988 and sections 13, 62 and 62A of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, "industrial action" means concerted action in combination by persons under a contract of employment or a contract under which they personally do work or perform services for another, done in contravention of one or more obligations under such contract, or a concerted refusal by such persons in combination to fulfil their obligations under such contract.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment proposes the addition of a new clause to the Bill. It is one of two that we are moving on industrial action to which this part of the Bill relates. In the light of debates that we have had, especially those on Clause 4, and with regard to the firm way in which views have been exchanged across the Chamber, I am well aware that a genuine difference of approach makes it unlikely

203
that the amendment will be acceptable to the Benches opposite. However, that difference of approach presents itself to us as a starting point with regard to the basic civil liberty of the right to withdraw one's services in the employment relationship.
I suspect that the contrary approach will interpret a civil liberty in a much narrower sense. However, despite that the amendment is relevant to both approaches. One might consider that both approaches would agree that an employee should not suffer disadvantage in law except where some wrong had been done. That is the normal situation with strikes and industrial action. Although we shall later suggest that the time is coming to change the draconian rule that the system represents, in our system the employee who goes on strike is seen to break the contract of employment and can normally be dismissed. However, since 1971 industrial action in some areas of law has had an odd meaning. The industrial relations legislation which introduced this concept has a new and wide meaning. It refers to industrial action which was introduced to exclude the new clause on unfair dismissal. That was a bipartisan addition to our new labour law in that period, especially in what is now Section 62 of the 1978 Act and Clause 8 of this Bill. That refers to dismissal of those taking part in industrial action. The rule has been that the employer has the right so to do but cannot victimise only some of those taking part. It has been described both in judicial and commentary authorities, in the words of Sir John Wood as having the objective:
"ostensibly to remain neutral in the face of industrial action".
In 1977 Mr. Justice Phillips described the curious area where the employer must dismiss all those taking part to avoid actions in the tribunal for unfair dismissal. But the phrase "those taking part in industrial action" has a very wide meaning beyond breach of contract of employment. Mr. Justice Phillips called it a kind of legal laissez-faire or neutrality in industrial disputes.
We say that in many respects the Government have departed from the area of neutrality in so far as that was a correct description. In this Bill they departed from such neutrality in Clause 8 in particular. Clauses 4 and 6 do not represent anything like a bipartisan attitude to these matters.
Before proceeding I simply point out that there is one other area where industrial action as a legal term occurs without a breach of the contract of employment; namely, in relation to the employees' continuity of service for the qualifying period. Since 1965, again on a bipartisan basis, that has been placed on the footing of industrial action freezing but not breaking the continuity, whether or not a breach of contract occurs. There seems to be no suggestion, and I hope that there will be none, from the Government that that should be changed.
Step by step, as we have heard this evening, there has been an approach towards a new attitude. Therefore we say in the amendment that in the important areas where rights and obligations rest upon the concept of industrial action where employees suffer disadvantage from the concept of industrial
204
action, as a general matter that should arise only when there is a breach of the contract of employment. It may be said that that is not a very great step to take. I would agree with that. Much of the industrial action that occurs is a breach of the contract of employment. However, in regard to dismissal it is quite important.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me setting out some of the authorities on which he will rely later in the Bill. One of those is the case of Power Packing Casemakers v. Faust of 1983 in the Court of Appeal. In that case workers who took industrial action in the form of an abstention from overtime work which they were not obliged to undertake, even though they committed no breach of contract, were held in this context of dismissal under Section 62 to have engaged in industrial action within the special meaning of that part of the law. Lord Justice Stephenson said that the phrase "industrial action" covered:
"even more clearly a refusal used as a bargaining weapon whether it is a breach of contract or not".
We say that because industrial action is not a wrong in itself and because the balance of rights and duties has moved so very strongly against, in particular, the individual employees. The organisers of industrial action do not commit a tort—a civil wrong—unless they induce employees to do wrong in terms of their contract of employment. Employees should have their rights assessed in terms of their contract of employment.
I suspect that those on the Benches opposite will look back—we shall not blame them as they blame us when we look back—and say, quite rightly, that a Labour Government were one of the administrations—the Minister is nodding—who agreed to this structure of the law and contributed to it very strongly in their legislation of 1974 to 1978. That is true, but some of us have learnt over the past 10 years. We have learnt that things could be worse than we thought. One of the lessons that we have learnt from that period is that the protection traditional to British employees is too fragile. If one believes in individual rights at work it is proper to say that an individual employee should not suffer disadvantage, at any rate unless he or she breaks the contract of employment. That is not a very radical or Bolshevik proposal to put before the Committee.
The bipartisan tradition is better represented by that than it is by the opposite. The liberty of association should be preserved in practice in that way, or at least as a first step. That is the general purport of our amendment. I appreciate that there are many points that could be made about whether any further Acts or provisions in Acts should be added to the list in the amendment. We have tried simply to set out the major provisions of 1982, 1984 and 1988 and one or two other sections of the 1978 Act. If the Minister got as far as that in considering the amendment we should be quite pleased because he will have taken it seriously, as we hope he has done. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: It is certainly true that the term "industrial action" appears, or will appear by virtue of

205
provisions of this Bill, in a number of statutes without the sort of definition proposed by this new clause. However, to accept the new clause would mean that those provisions, in some cases, could have quite different effects from those which would otherwise apply. The Government believe that any such change would be highly undesirable.
What the new clause completely fails to address is the fact that it is quite possible for workers to bring pressure to bear on their employer, or for workers to be induced to bring pressure on their employer, by means which do not involve breach or interference with the terms of the contracts under which they work.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that the only damaging action which workers can take to bring pressure on their employer necessarily involves breach or interference with the performance of their contracts. For example, the Court of Appeal judgment—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—in the case of Faust v. Power Packaging Casemakers recognised that a refusal to do voluntary overtime could constitute "taking industrial action" if it was motivated by certain considerations.
As regards employees' individual employment protection rights, courts and tribunals have rightly been reluctant to place a rigid limit on activities which might constitute "industrial action". In addition to the Faust case, they have found that standing round a new machine for a short time to prevent the employer from testing its operation (Thompson v. Eaton Ltd. 1976), or holding a disruptive union meeting at the peak point of production (Rasool v. Hepworth Pipe Co. Ltd. (No. 1), 1980) constitutes "taking industrial action" for the purposes of Section 62 of the 1978 Act. What the employees did in such cases might arguably not have involved interference with their contracts of employment, but I think it is clear enough that it is right to treat it as "industrial action".
It follows that if such activities prevent an employer providing work for other employees, the provisions of Section 13 of the 1978 Act should disqualify them from entitlement to guarantee pay, as envisaged by the terms of Section 13(2).
As regards immunity for threatening or calling for industrial action, the position is rather different. There can be no liability in tort for doing something which does not involve inducement to breach or interfere with the performance of a contract. In that context, therefore, if a union is required to ballot its members before calling on them to take industrial action, it will not need to do so for the purposes of protection against liability in tort if it is calling upon them to do something which does not involve any such breach or interference.
However, Section 1 of the 1988 Act gives union members the right to restrain their union from calling on them to take industrial action whether or not such breach or interference is involved. That issue was debated at length during the passage of the 1988 Act in your Lordships' House. I hope it will suffice if I simply remind the Committee that there were sound
206
reasons for this approach, including the fact that whereas union members will not have much difficulty in deciding whether they are being called upon to take industrial action, it could be difficult for them to know whether they were being called upon to breach or interfere with the performance of their contracts; and as employees, they would be liable to non-selective dismissal if dismissed while taking part in any industrial action whether or not the action involved any breach of or interference with the performance of their contracts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, pointed out, when the Labour Party enacted the provisions of Section 62 of the 1978 Act it saw no need to define industrial action as it now proposes. It was right not to do so, and to leave it to courts and tribunals to recognise industrial action on the basis of the description of events given to them in disputed cases.
It is naive to suppose that workers cannot cause damage and inconvenience to their employer by doing, or refusing to do, something in a way that does not involve actual breach of or interference with the performance of their contracts. Accordingly, it is right to treat such activity, for relevant purposes, in the same way as industrial action such as a strike which does involve breach of contract. This new clause, however, would adopt exactly the opposite approach.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will consider carefully what I have said and will agree that the approach which he proposes in the new clause would not be the best one to take.
Baroness Seear: I hope that the Government will think again about the proposed new clause. Over recent years the whole sphere of industrial relations has become more and more legalistic and restrictive by law. We, on these Benches, agreed that some changes in the law were necessary. However, we believe that the Government have gone much too far in their legalistic approach.
I was always taught to believe that the more we kept people like the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, out of industrial relations, the better. These matters should be settled without this highly legalistic approach. The Government have over-encouraged legalism and made it much more difficult for decent industrial relations to develop free from legal intervention. The amendment is desirable to the extent that it would reduce the legalistic approach. The Government have been pursuing trade unions beyond the point at which it is sensible and reasonable. Some relaxation is long overdue.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am surprised that, with her great knowledge of these matters, the noble Baroness should accuse the Government of being over-legalistic. All that has happened over recent years is that the Government have attempted to get in front of the barriers that the trade union movement have regularly set up in a legalistic framework backed by industrial action to circumvent the best endeavours of our better industrial companies towards industrial relations.
Baroness Seear: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, many of our best industrial companies share the view that we have become overly legalistic.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: That is perfectly true. They do share that view. It is something which they would not wish were it not for the actions taken in recent years which have circumvented the law which has been in place and has given rise to the situation that other laws have to be put in place to give a balance to precisely the argument to which the noble Baroness refers.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I can briefly say to the noble Baroness that she must be aware that by this current Bill we get rid of the closed shop and secondary action; and we are about to get rid of unofficial action. We are making things less and less legalistic. We are getting rid of the type of problems in which the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, seek to indulge. We are less legalistic. It is precisely this new clause that would create the kind of problems that the noble Baroness does not wish to see.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that lawyers should retreat so far as possible from industrial relations. My only amendment to her proposition is that they should be preceded by Ministers of the present Government.
The Minister said some interesting things, and perhaps I can comment quickly on two. We are more and more winkling out the Government's approach. Now that they have reached this point of their step-by-step approach—I do not mean the Minister personally—they are becoming over-confident; they are beginning to explain what the Bill is about.
The Minister refers to workers who bring pressure to bear on their employer; later he said that employees who inconvenience their employer must suffer disadvantage whether it is a breach of their contract or obligation or anything else. We do not hear very much of employers who bring pressure to bear on their employees or who inconvenience their employees.
This does not amount to pressure and disadvantage used to make employees work to their contract, which we say is the rule of law. The rule of law is that one works to one's contract and is made to work to that contract, not necessarily by specific performance but by appropriate sanctions. To make the worker work as opposed to working to his contract—which is what this Bill is involved in—without inconvenience to the employer, is the labour law of the master and servant Act and the Poor Law. It contains precisely that philosophy. We shall read Hansard. The Minister may want to amend what he said.
The Minister is right that the present case law from Thompson v. Eaton, Rasool, Faust, and a large number of other cases, makes it clear that industrial action in this area of dismissal and strikes does not depend upon breach of contract. I am delighted that we are agreed on that point. I knew that we would agree because of our correspondence. That will be important when we come to Clause 8.
It is in this area of dismissal that this amendment could have had its most important effect. It is a paving
208
step towards the debate. I say now that it will be a complex debate. It will need to consider a large number of legal authorities; but that is what this Chamber is for. I hope that when we come to Clause 8 we shall at least have saved a little time by having had this useful exchange on this point of breach of contract. I am sorry that the Minister will not consider the matter further. I agree with the noble Baroness but this is an area which should be looked at, in a sense, quite apart from the Bill. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Minor amendments relating to ballots]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert ("provided that where it is not reasonably practicable for members of a trade union who are employed under such contracts to be included in the ballot, a failure to accord them entitlement to vote shall not constitute a breach of section 11 of that Act.)".
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Minister is not entirely ad-libbing tonight. He seems to be getting off his script on occasions. If he is telling us that the more restrictions on immunity we have and t he fewer rights we have the less law we have, so that if we have no immunities and no rights we would be totally free, that is a novel doctrine. On the other hand, if he is saying that he wants to get rid of law, not just law which binds upon employers but law per se, perhaps he will follow this amendment and, if he will leave his brief, say that he will look at it sympathetically.
This minor amendment deals with a clause which the Government themselves say is putting through a series of minor amendments. Therefore, we have a minor amendment to a clause which itself introduces minor amendments. This very small amendment releases the law a little in ways that may help workers a little and which possibly may find support from the Government.
The purpose of Clause 5 is to add a number of additional restrictions and to widen the area of balloting. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, does not like it. She says that it is giving us more and more law. The purpose of the first part of the clause is to extend the scope of the balloting provisions to cover strikes involving contracts of service as well as contracts of employment. Therefore, restrictions which previously merely applied to contracts of employment are now to apply to those who may be involved in industrial action and who have contracts of service only: in other words, the self-employed and, more particularly, those in the construction industry who are working in some form of labour-only sub-contracting.
The purpose of the amendment, which, as I said, is a very modest one, is to introduce that familiar concept, the reasonable or practicable caveat, into requirements of ballot legality; to say, in fact, "Yes, of course, you must organise now or seek to organise a ballot in terms of the 1984 Act and the 1988 amendment. However, if it is not reasonably practicable to include all the workers who are under

209
the kind of contracts covered by the extension of the clause, the mere fact that you have not included all those workers does not make the action unlawful".
The Minister will know, and no doubt will tell us, that this whole subject was raised, debated and rejected in another place. At that stage the Minister said (cols. 197–200 of Commons Hansard) that Section 11(1) of the 1984 Act provides only that one must include those members of a trade union who believe they will strike and if the trade union has no reason to believe they will strike and does not ballot them they are all right. Secondly, he said that Section 11(6) of the 1984 Act states that the right to vote need only be given to those who are entitled to vote as far as is reasonably practicable and, if you put those two things together, in effect you get what we are asking for in this amendment.
With respect, we do not think that that is the case. We are not just suggesting that we should take account of those who are left off the ballot because the union never thought that they would strike and therefore did not put them on the ballot—that is what Section 11(1) does—and we are not referring to those who offend against the provisions of Section 11(6). We are asking for a somewhat wider caveat, exemption or allowance than that. Consider the situation of a mixed ballot, as there might well be, in which the union is introducing a number of workers who have contracts of employment on, say, a building site, but also involved in the strike action are a number of workers on the lump who have contracts of service or who are self-employed.
We are asking why there should not be a special provision as it is much more difficult to contact these people. They are more mobile and they have probably been in the union for a shorter period of time. They may also be out of compliance and therefore may not be on the employer's list of members. It is possible that they are not on the employer's computerised payroll, which is frequently the source from which the unions obtain the names of their people. In those circumstances we are saying why not have a small and modest provision—provided that the union can show that it was not reasonably practicable to include the people concerned in the ballot—to allow the industrial action to be lawful? I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wonder in what circumstances it would not be reasonably practicable for members of a trade union who are employed to be included in a ballot. If they are available to be called out on strike, it seems that it should be possible to include them in the ballot. I am a little puzzled when the noble Lord says that there may be some persons whom one can call out on strike but who cannot be included in the ballot. Can the noble Lord explain that point?
Lord McCarthy: If these people come out on strike and they are included in the strike, unless they have been balloted in an entirely legal way which is laid down with great precision in the legislation, then that act of validation will be unlawful. If the union unfortunately gets into its strike force some people
210
who did not get a ballot form and therefore did not vote for whatever reason, then the ballot becomes unlawful.
We say that the union should do everything that is reasonably practicable to include such people in the ballot. For the reasons I have given there are difficulties in including them because of the rate of turnover and the absence of their names on a computerised payroll. Another reason may be that they have been on the site for a shorter period. Therefore, in terms of simple solidarity, if one may use that strange phrase, they may involve themselves in industrial action. It may be that their terms and conditions of employment are involved. If they are on strike and they are not included in the ballot, then unless this amendment is passed it would be an unlawful ballot.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord has not explained the circumstances in which it cannot be reasonably practicable to include these persons in the ballot. If they can be called out on strike, they can surely be included in the ballot. Is not this provision possibly opening quite a gap in the law?
Lord McCarthy: I do not wish to keep jumping up like a jack-in-the-box. There is so much wrong with the noble Lord's view. The trouble is that he thinks that everyone is called out on strike as though all trade unionists have little pieces of string attached to them; the string is pulled, but in the absence of the string, they do not come. Therefore, if trade unionists have the string around their necks and it is pulled, why cannot they be made to sign the ballot before the string is pulled? Strange as it may seem people come out on strike. They are not always called out. They may feel themselves involved and have an interest in the matter. They may even want to support other people. They come out on strike but it may not have been reasonably practicable to give them a paper to put a cross on. Therefore, the ballot is unlawful.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Why not?
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that the instructions for the ballot may have been sent by post. In the present state of the Post Office it is possible that the paper was not received.
10 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: That would fulfil the reasonably practicable aspect of the clause. Perhaps I may more fully explain what exactly Clause 5 does. It remedies an anomaly in the present law. As explained in the Green Paper, Removing Barriers to Employment, the present requirements of the law on union industrial action ballots apply only in respect of action taken by those employed under contracts of employment defined in a particular way. However, it is perfectly possible for a trade dispute to involve workers doing work under other kinds of contracts. The law would give immunity for inducing industrial action in contemplation or furtherance of such disputes by such workers.
As an example one may consider the position where industrial action is in prospect by all the union members on a construction site where 90 per cent. Of

211
those members are working as freelancers under contracts of services and 10 per cent. are working under contracts of employment as presently defined for the purposes of the relevant law. The way in which the present law is framed means that the union can still have immunity for organising the action even if it does not give a vote in a ballot to the 90 per cent. of its members who happen to be working under contracts other than contracts of employment. It has to ballot only the 10 per cent. who work under contracts of employment, the situation which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, wants to protect.
Whether or not any such situation has arisen in practice, it cannot be right to allow that law to remain as it is. There is simply no good reason to deprive such workers who are members of a union of the right to a proper ballot as is available under the Government's legislation to union members who happen to be working under contracts of employment. The noble Lord has claimed that it is too difficult for a union to give entitlement to vote to the members who would be given such entitlement by virtue of this clause. It is no more difficult to give such members an entitlement than it is to give it to members who do work under contracts of employment.
In any case the law already caters for a situation in which it is in practice impossible for all members with such entitlement to be given the opportunity to vote. First, the balloting constituency—that is, the members who must be given entitlement to vote—is and will continue to be defined by Section 11(1) of the 1984 Act. That means entitlement to vote must be given to all those members of a trade union who it is reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union to believe will be induced to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the strike or other industrial action.
Secondly, Section 11(6) of the 1984 Act specifies that, as far as is reasonably practicable, every person properly entitled to vote must be given a voting paper and a convenient opportunity to vote. Thus the law already applies and will continue to apply a reasonable practicability test. It means that if it really is not reasonably practicable for a union to give some of those properly entitled to vote in industrial action ballots the opportunity to do so, the ballot can nonetheless give the union protection for calling industrial action.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it is entirely right that a union should make reasonable efforts to satisfy the requirements of the law as regards establishing the balloting constituency and giving those entitled to vote the opportunity to do so. It is also right that if it fails to make those efforts the union should be at risk of proceedings if it goes ahead with organised industrial action, since it will have denied members their democratic rights. That is fundamentally what it is all about. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the amendment is unnecessary and that he will therefore withdraw it.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord is now saying something quite different from what the Government said in another place.
Lord Strathclyde: No.
Lord McCarthy: Yes, quite different. In another place the Government said that we could not have this amendment because it would unfairly and unduly widen the area of immunity. The noble Lord now says that we do not need the amendment because it does not do anything new. I suppose we ought to call this the ILO answer. We are getting the ILO answer—"I can't tell you why we are against it; we have told somebody secretly, privately, confidentially. We always do it secretly, privately and confidentially, and you must take it on trust." I suppose that that is what we shall get.
Even then, the noble Lord should not misrepresent our position. We have never said—at least we have never said in this amendment—that we are opposed to extending ballots to contracts of service. That is not the purpose of the amendment. If one has to have ballots in the way that they are prescribed in the legislation there is a certain logic in introducing and including contracts of service alongside contracts of employment. We are not arguing about that. We are saying that in the circumstances, and given the difficulties of contacting workers who are on contracts of service, there ought to be some reflection of that in the legislation. We were told in another place that we could not have it because it was too wide. Now we are told that we cannot have it because it is exactly the same. Nevertheless, at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 9, at end insert:
("(6) The following subsection shall be inserted in section 10 of the Trade Union Act 1984—
"(3B) Where a trade union holds a ballot which complies with this Part of this Act and with the support of that ballot induces persons to take part, or to continue to take part, in industrial action, nothing in this section shall cause an act to be actionable by reason only that those persons include one or more who have been engaged by an employer party to the dispute to enter his employment since the date of the ballot".".).
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a point which has emerged recently in the courts but which has worried some people for some time. To put it briefly, it concerns a ballot being held and a call later for industrial action to the union's members in a dispute with one employer—a proper trade dispute; nothing the Government could object to. Those who actually join the stoppage include employees who were not employed by the employer at the time of the ballot. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the Master of the Rolls, said in the recent case of The Post Office v. The Union of Communication Workers in the Industrial Relations Law Reports at page 147:
"The Union clearly cannot identify and ballot those of its members who are not employees of the employer at the time of the ballot, but who will, in the event, join the workforce at a later date. It would seem to follow that any call for industrial action following a ballot should expressly be limited to those who were employed by the employer".

213
I interpolate that the noble and learned Lord is interpreting the statute and that the word "should" means that this should be limited to those employed by the employer. He continued by saying that they should be,
"given an opportunity of voting at the time of the ballot. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say at once that I am not concerned, I do not think that any court would be concerned, at small changes in the workforce but, de minimis apart, this point may repay consideration".
In context, it is clear that the noble and learned Lord thought that that was perhaps the proper reading of the statute. When one hears a court say, "de minimis apart", one knows that very often it is facing a conclusion that it thinks is not altogether sensible and is retaining some elbow room for itself in a case where only a small error, as the statute would say, has been made.
However, it does not seem very sensible that that should be the position. I do not believe that that was anyone's intention. I do not remember and I could not find any evidence of the point ever having been discussed as regards the enactment of the 1984 legislation. As I said, I do not believe that it was anyone's intention that this should be the position.
After all, it is the employer and not the union who hires the extra employees in the short time after the ballot, which we assume to be positive, as in that case; or at least it would have been had they managed to regularise the position. Moreover, when the union calls out its members it does not seem reasonable, if a few who are more than de minimis—however many that may be—then join, as members would naturally do in such a dispute, that that should so to speak invalidate the entire operation which otherwise the union has, we assume, carried through in strict conformity with the statutes.
Maybe there are problems with the wording proposed in the amendment. However, we thought it right to raise the matter because it is a situation which can lead to great uncertainty and legal argument. For example, no one knows how many people are included in the expression "de minimis". There may also be argument about exactly who was hired and when. It seems to me to be a quite unnecessary piece of legalism in the ordinary run of industrial affairs to get in the way and possibly even affect negotiations in a dispute. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will be glad to know that I think his amendment is unnecessary. Section 11(1) of the Trade Union Act 1984 requires the union to accord an entitlement to vote to all those members of the trade union who it is reasonable, at the time of the ballot, for the union to believe will be induced to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the strike or industrial action. It is clear that the question of entitlement to vote falls to be decided by reference to union members employed by the relevant employer at the time of the ballot. Therefore, to suggest that the
214
ballot could be invalid because individuals who joined the group at a later date were not given a vote makes no sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, mentioned, in support, the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, in the case of The Post Office v The Union of Communication Workers. The Government agree that it would not be reasonable for a union to be expected to ballot members who had not been employed by the relevant employer at the time of the ballot when it had no way of knowing that it would later be called to take the action to which the ballot relates. No proceedings could be brought on that ground. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that the law already adequately covers the point and that the additional protection which the amendment seeks to provide is unnecessary. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I always exert myself to the utmost of my powers to be reassured by the Minister. I fear that on this occasion too he has been unsuccessful. In the passage that I read the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said:
"It would seem to follow"—
that is, follow from the Act—
"that any call for industrial action following a ballot should expressly be limited to those who were employed by the employer, and given an opportunity of voting at the time of the ballot".
Of course we cannot expect the union to ballot people who are not employed by the employer. That is not the point. The point is that there appears to be emerging a legal rule that the union can call out people or induce them to take part in industrial action only if they were employed at the time of the ballot. That is the obverse of the issue, and that is the problem.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. It is a silly little problem. It need not cause any difficulty. It will get in the way in a dispute which might otherwise be settled. It may not happen all that often. It is just the kind of difficulty which arises—here I say, in my experience—once the lawyers become involved. If I am briefed—for whichever side—it is my job to take such a point, to win, and to obtain an injunction if I am for the employer. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is saying that the employer might obtain an injunction on that point. That is silly. The Minister thinks that it is silly. That is why he spoke about something else. Subject to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, intervening, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: The Minister has implied that he agrees with the amendment. He said that it is unnecessary because the point is already covered. He will have heard of a belt and braces. What is the trouble with accepting the amendment and making the position clear? Why cannot he accept the amendment? As he says that the matter is covered, it would not do any harm. If there is any doubt, it would make the position clear.
Lord Strathclyde: I thought that that was the point the noble Baroness was trying to make in respect of a

215
previous amendment when she said that we did not want any more legalistic stuff. Here is an example of the Government saying that more law is unnecessary while the noble Baroness is saying that we should have the amendment in any case.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, said that the point would repay consideration. The Government have considered it. They see no reason to change the law.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: For a moment I believed that the Government were going to reconsider the point in the light of the noble and learned Lord's admonition. I seriously ask the Minister to consult on the issue if he does not wish to leave the Bill in a curious state and does not want bad law. We do not want more law; we want better law. Managers will not necessarily thank the Government for leaving the position as it is. The unions have a little to gain from the amendment. Managers will gain from the fact that they will not be able to put the matter to their lawyers as early as they otherwise might. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 6 [Responsibility of trade union for acts of officials, &c.]:
Lard McCarthy Lard McCarthy moved Amendment No. 21:
Page, 6, line 24, after ("union") insert ("where the committee or official is not prevented by the rules of the union from doing, authorising or endorsing that act").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 21 and speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 25. In many ways this is the most serious clause in the Bill—not the most disgusting, that is Clause 8. It is the most serious example—to paraphrase the Minister—of setting the workers free by restricting their freedom. The amendment makes virtually any officer of any union, and any committee of any union responsible for the acts of a member of the union which happen to be outside the boundaries of law.
It is a long story. Some Members of the Committee may not like us going back into the past, and believe that if we do so we shall get stuck there. I apologise to them. I shall turn to the present; but I must start with 1971 when the previous Conservative Government succeeded in removing the blanket immunity in tort which had been re-enacted in the 1974 TULRA. They did it in a way which was generally thought by most people subsequently to have been—intentionally or unintentionally—a mess. That led to a series of cases in which judges at various levels of the judiciary said that certain bodies inside unions were either responsible for the acts of the members or should make the union responsible. Other judges said that other people should be responsible.
It was generally thought that when in the 1980s the Conservative Government wanted to consider this legislation again, they should take a totally different approach. We did not want it at the time but the form of liability that was introduced in 1982 was to spell out the responsibilities in the statutes of that year, to state
216
specifically who would be legally responsible, who could commit the union and therefore commit tortious liability, clearly and precisely in the statute. This has turned out to be a rather clearer and better way of doing it than the way that it was done in 1971.
Yet the Government wish to change it. Everyone would say that a wide range of people under the terms of the statute are responsible for the actions of the union: the union's principal executive; the president and general secretary; any other employed full-time official of the union; any committee to which any of those people report; and those authorised under the rules to do this anyway. I should have thought that net was wide enough. There should be no need to go further in the way that Clause 6 does and say that virtually everybody in the union who could be said to be an official or to serve on the committee of the union—whatever the rule books may say—could commit the union. It is their responsibility and the union could find itself at risk, it could incur considerable penalties and costs. The only escape, once the union knows that this is the case, is the act of repudiation.
Therefore we ask for a modification. We do not ask that there should be no change from the present situation. We ask for a limitation on this global, general, vague liability under which branch treasurers might put the union into a situation of liability. The average branch steward—not a shop steward—might put the union into a liability. We suggest that if the rule book says clearly and precisely that such-and-such an officer has no such authority, that will be one condition to be satisfied. However, even then these two conditions should run together. The rule book clearly states that such a person is in no such position of authority, and if the person himself is not in the employment of the union—he may be a lay member or a doorkeeper, a branch secretary or a branch treasurer—he should not be put in a position where he can be made responsible for, or authorise, industrial action.
Once upon a time the Conservatives wished to introduce an element of liability and responsibility and they wanted to take away blanket immunity. However, they believed it was unfair and unjust to put every single officer or lay official of a union, however minor he may be, in a position where he could commit the union. They had several reasons for thinking that, but they also felt that would put a union in an impossible position if the only way it could escape such a liability was by an act of repudiation. We shall be considering acts of repudiation in the context of this Bill in subsequent amendments. The legal position is uncertain as regards an act of repudiation taking place. What is the legal position of a union as regards an act of repudiation and a validating ballot?
In this amendment we propose that liability should be limited, even if the Government wish to extend it. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope and some assistance tonight, and that he will try to spell out some of the reasons why the Government feel it is necessary to introduce a provision of this kind. I hope that he will try to put some flesh on the bones of the general arguments in the Green Paper which suggest that there has been a tremendous increase in the

217
number of unofficial strikes. Those arguments further suggest that it is that increase in unofficial strikes which has made the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government depart from a position which I consider they have held since the early 1970s.
The Green Paper refers to a few random unofficial strikes. However, it makes no significant attempt to provide statistical evidence to demonstrate that the proportion of unofficial strikes has increased over the past five or 10 years. It has no considerable body of evidence to suggest that the number of working days lost as a result of strikes has increased over the past few years. It contains an assertion that three-quarters of the disputes that could be classified were found to be unofficial. However, we do not know how many of the alleged disputes could not be classified and we do not know what proportion of them were finally classified. Even on the figures that the Minister gave over the two years for which they are available, only 20 per cent. of working days lost were due to unofficial action. However we do not know whether the figure for previous years was 10, 15, 25 or 30 per cent. So far the Government have provided no statistical analysis or case studies to demonstrate why they should depart so completely from their former policies. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: As these are the first amendments dealing with potential union liability for unofficial industrial action, I should say that in my view Clause 6 will do nothing to improve this country's industrial relations. It may well create more difficulties for management by prolonging procedures for resolving disputes. That in turn may provoke employees to take more unofficial action rather than less. There is a further danger. The Government's aim in introducing this clause is to curb such action. However, my fear is that it may have the reverse effect in that unofficial action will escalate into major official disputes legitimised by a ballot.
One reason why the Government have introduced the clause is that they want to put a stop to the practice whereby unions have sometimes connived at unofficial action in order to escape liability for it. What troubles me is that their proposed remedy may prove worse than the disease.
In the past, as a manager, I have had to deal on a number of occasions with unofficial action taken by members of the AEU. That union makes it plain in its rule book that only the executive council or the national committee may authorise industrial action of any kind. My first reaction to such trouble was to call in the union's district official to persuade his members to go back to work before trying to get the dispute resolved. If necessary, the national officer was roped in. The effect of the clause as it stands will be to undermine the authority of that union and distance it from its members. The amendment has the merit of seeking positively to uphold rather than to diminish the union's authority. That, rather than the Government's penal policy, is the approach which in my view should be encouraged.
218
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 22. The effect of subsection (3) is to make any obscure shop steward, elected perhaps by only a handful of union members, responsible for their acts. In order to repudiate that action, the union will have to go through the whole elaborate process of repudiation set out in subsection (5). It will have to do its best to give written notice of repudiation to every member of the union who takes part or might otherwise take part in that action.
What happens if a shop steward calls for action by people outside the section that he has been elected to represent? There does not appear to be anything in the Bill to limit the responsibility of an official to his section of the union. Presumably, the matter will have to be settled in the courts. That may be fine for lawyers, but, so far as I can see, it will do nothing to help management maintain good relations with their employees in the workplace. The amendment aims to limit the damage that the clause may cause by confining liability to officials who are employed by the union. For that reason, I support it.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may draw his attention to subsection 3(B) which makes it clear that the union would be liable in the circumstances to which he referred. It states:
"The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (3) apply notwithstanding anything in the rules of the union, or in any contract or rule of law".
In other words, even if the shop steward was involved in industrial action in which he was in no way a representative, he might be liable.
Lord Strathclyde: The Green Paper Unofficial Action and the Law explained the case for changing the present law on union liability for certain acts done by its officials and committees. If I had to summarise the nature of its particular proposals, I would say that they involved, first, widening the potential liability of unions, so that this applied in respect of relevant acts done by any of its officials or committees, including shop stewards; and, secondly, ensuring that, where any union official or committee called for industrial action and that act came to the knowledge of the union's executive, president or general secretary, they would have to make it clear to all concerned if the union repudiated what the official or committee had done.
That is what the provisions of Clause 6 are all about. They build upon the present law concerning union liability for relevant acts—that is to say, Section 15 of the 1982 Employment Act—so as to update that law.
The amendments before us now, and the next 18 or so amendments to the clause, seek either to undermine the intended effects of Section 15 of the 1982 Act as it would be modified by the clause, or to provide scope for unions or their officials to evade liability by adopting rule book devices or by getting others with whom they are associated to do the relevant act on their behalf. I hope that it will be accepted by the Committee that that is what the Opposition are trying to do.

219
I should add at the outset that, while the provisions of Clause 6 certainly involve modifying and extending the present law, they do not involve any new principle in terms of setting out special statutory provisions for union liability for relevant acts.
I accept that in various respects both the present law and the law as it would stand modified by Clause 6 are 'unique" in terms of creating special rules for the vicarious liability of trade unions. However, it has long been recognised, by Labour governments as well as Conservative governments, that unions are very special bodies whose affairs should be subject to appropriate legislation.
In historical terms—the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was interested in the historical precedent of trade union legislation since 1971—the Labour Government enacted such law as part of the 1974 and 1976 Acts. What the Labour Government did meant that union funds, unlike those of companies or other bodies, were not put at risk even if union officers or officials committed unlawful, tortious acts.
What we have done and what we propose are very different. We have recognised that when union members are called upon to take industrial action by a shop steward or a group of which their shop steward is a member, so far as the members are concerned that will he a call by "the union". That reality will be reflected in the provisions of the modified Section 15.
However, it is vital to appreciate that we are not going so far as saying that a union cannot avoid liability for relevant acts of its officials or committees. Other provisions mean that such liability can be avoided where a union finds it necessary and appropriate to do so by following the procedure for "effective repudiation". That, too, is reasonable and right.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, will not like the idea of repudiation and will regard it as being far too onerous on unions. It is not, as we shall see when we continue through the amendments.
Bearing those points in mind, let me examine these amendments. Amendments Nos. 21 and 25 would enable a union to avoid potential liability for any relevant act of its officials or committees if they were,
"prevented by the rules of the union from doing, authorising or endorsing that act"
as expressed in Amendment No. 21, or if the union happened to have a rule which provided that in relevant circumstances an official who did a certain act was no longer to be regarded as "an official"—the obvious implication of Amendment No. 25.
What would happen if any such option were to be open to unions? It must be reasonable to assume that unions would proceed forthwith to make such rules as were necessary to restore the status quo. Certainly, the union's rules might then deny shop stewards the authority to call for industrial action on behalf of the union. But would members appreciate that sort of technical difference? I venture to suggest that they would not.
As paragraph 2.7 of the Green Paper explained—
10.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: Will the noble Lord take it from me that there are virtually no rule books which give shop stewards the right to call strikes and commit the union? That is why this Bill has to say, "Ignore the rule book".
Lord Strathclyde: But by passing this amendment and specifically excluding it in the rules, the unions would get round the effects of this clause entirely and there would not be any point in having it. There would be no requirement to repudiate.
Lord McCarthy: I am sorry to interrupt again, but that is not so. It is only the case in respect of lay officials. We do not say—if we do say it in this series of amendments we are wrong and will correct them—and it is not our intention to say that they can write themselves a rule book so that the general secretary, the executive and the rest are not responsible. We say that this can only be done if it is in the rule book and is being done for lay officials and not for full-time officials.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure that I understand the point that the noble Lord is trying to make. Presumably the rule book could be changed to take account of that. So far as I can see, it is totally unnecessary to accept this point on the basis that the unions could adjust their rule books in such a way as to avoid the repudiation of procedure and avoid the total effect of the clause. I may well be wrong, but that is what I understand.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It may be helpful to put it in this way. The distinction is between the employee and the agent. The amendment would provide that one is still liable for one's employees in respect of anything done in the course of employment, or of the authority. However, for those who are not employees but are lay agents from time to time, there is the capacity to determine the authority within which one will be liable. That would seem a reasonable proposition.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before the Minister responds, can the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, explain to the Committee how those people—they may be called branch secretaries or branch treasurers—who may not be empowered under the terms in the rule book may be separately identified by the membership as not being officials and therefore unable to call an action? I should have thought that anybody of a particular standing within the organisation would be thought of by rank and file membership of a trade union or any other organisation as having authority to perform a certain action. Whether at a later stage a trade union can repudiate that action because of what is in the rule book seems somewhat immaterial. I cannot understand that argument.
Lord McCarthy: The relationship between trade unions and their members is rather complicated. We do not have bits of string that we pull. The rule book is usually extremely clear. Only the national executive can authorise industrial action. If one authorises industrial action, in most circumstances one pays benefit. Only the national executive is entitled to pay

221
out the money. Therefore most activists, officials, in the union know only too well who is entitled to authorise official action on behalf of the union. If any union had rules which were significantly different, it would go bankrupt.
Once one gets away from the "string" mentality it does not mean that groups of workers will not come out on strike and will not have people whom they regard as leaders. But that happens with non-unionists. That is unofficial action. We are talking of trade unions. We are saying that unions should be responsible only for those lay members who are specified in the rule book to have that responsibility.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that trade unions were complicated. We are trying to make them less complicated by making sure that repudiation affects everybody, lay or official, who calls action in the union's name.
Perhaps I may explain precisely why we feel the way we do. In the Green Paper we said:
"Unofficial action may be seen by a union as a useful means of putting pressure on an employer before or during negotiations."
Paragraph 2.8 mentioned that the National Union of Mineworkers has rules which preclude officials below a certain level in the union hierarchy from calling for industrial action on the union's behalf. However, British Coal has pointed out that in reality there has often been very close involvement by lay officials in industrial action affecting particular collieries, and the union has failed to intervene in any way.
This is neatly summed up in the Green Paper as follows:
"Where the union passively acquiesces in unofficial action organised by lay officers or by officials forbidden under the union's rules to authorise or endorse it, the effect is that the union escapes responsibility and avoids the need to fulfil certain requirements which would apply if the union itself organised industrial action, such as holding a proper ballot".
That is what it is all about. These amendments seek to allow such a situation to continue and to flourish. They are accordingly quite unacceptable. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth is quite correct.
Amendment No. 22 is, if nothing else, direct. It would completely reverse the intended effect of a key change to be made to Section 15(3) of the 1982 Act by Clause 6(3). It would mean that the provisions of the section applied only to relevant acts of employed union officials or committees.
Section 15 as it stands already renders a union potentially liable for a relevant act by any official "who is an employed official"—that is to say, employed by the union. Therefore, if the amendment were to be accepted, the status quo would be restored and the intended effect of the clause would be completely undermined.
As I have already explained, it is not a valid argument to point out that what is proposed in the clause is the creation of special vicarious liability which is to apply to unions in a way that would not be the case for other bodies. That is simply irrelevant once it is accepted—as I believe that it must be—that
222
unions are really very special bodies, with unique purposes. Moreover, in the real world, the influence of officials not employed by the union they are perceived to represent is also, in a very real sense, unique. It is not difficult to find evidence of that in almost every unofficial dispute.
Clause 6 is an important part of the package of measures which the Bill proposes to help deter and discourage unofficial action. It is entirely right that unions should in future be responsible for threats of, or calls to take, industrial action by any of their officials, or committees, or relevant groups with which officials are associated. The amendments would subvert the measures which are necessary to establish such responsibility. I hope that the noble Lord will not press them. I also hope that he will not press the other amendments to the clause because they all relate to the same basic problem—they seek to allow the union to avoid the requirements of the clause.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord's replies are a mixture of the general and the obvious; the particular and the mistaken. He has taken us generally through the Bill and told us what the provisions of the Bill are. I am bound to say to the Minister, at twenty minutes to eleven, that we know what the provisions of the Bill are.
He then took us through our amendment, and stated the general and the obvious. He said that the intention of our amendment is to widen the degree of immunity. Of course it is. He said that it reduces the number of those who carry liability. Of course it does. If we were not trying to widen the area of immunity and to reduce the level and area of liability, there would not be much point in putting down an amendment.
When the noble Lord came to the particular and the specific and tried to take us through what he said was the meaning of our amendments, he was almost invariably wrong. I do not want to bore the Committee at this time of night with examples; but the best example was the result of a number of interventions from this side of the Chamber. The Minister told us that the amendments meant that the union would be put in a position in which, by changing its rules, it could create a situation in which no one in the union would be liable. The amendment is not intended to interfere with any of the powers in existing legislation. The position with regard to those who are liable under the existing legislation and the need to operate the revocation procedure will remain exactly the same - the principal executive, the president, the general secretary and the other employed officials. That will remain exactly the same. All we are trying to do is to modify some of the extensions proposed in the Bill. Nevertheless, at this time of the night we do not intend to divide the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 23 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 24.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, leave out lines 28 to 33.
The noble Lord said: That eventuality is not highly likely. In moving Amendment No. 23, it may assist the Committee if I refer to matters which arise from both amendments.
Just as my noble friend has outlined an arguably reasonable approach to liability which would still, had the previous amendments been passed, be rather more strict than the normal rules of vicarious liability for bodies generally, so in this amendment and the one that follows we see the extreme character of the Bill. I concentrate on lines 28 to 33 because one sees from them just how far the Bill takes liability for what the Minister has called this special body on special principles. It takes us not merely to the case in which an official exceeds his power, but to the case in which the official joins with or visits a group of persons. I suggest that on Report we should look again at paragraph (b) on page 6 of the Bill.
The real situation is one where trouble has emerged and the manager sends for the local union official at whatever is the appropriate level according to different union customs. He then comes in to see what is the problem. Perhaps there has been a stoppage. The official finds a group of his members. Given the industrial relations system which we have, it is also very likely that some of his members will be with members of another union or non-unionists. In a large plant, there may be conveners from different unions. He joins them in order to find out the problem.
That is fatal to union liability. That is the Government's contribution to solving industrial problems. Managers will tear their hair out if the Bill is passed in its current form. Thereafter, the most incidental purpose of the group may be to organise or co-ordinate industrial action. As those people have a grievance against the management it is likely that such action will be contemplated in some form. It might be thought that the Bill would then state that the union is liable for anything done by the official or that the union is liable for anything done by the group. That is how the matter was put by the Minister. It might be thought that the Bill would say that the union is liable for anything done by the person who had previously been organising or co-ordinating the group. That is much too reasonable. The Bill actually states that the union is then liable for anything done, authorised or endorsed either by the group of persons—and it is highly accurate because it is understood that that may not be a member of the union at all—or by any member of that group of persons.
The Government cannot mean that. The issue was debated in another place. The defence of it was weak. Are the Government so determined to make the union liable for acts done by any person, be he a member of the union or not, in a group of persons, one of whose
224
purposes was co-ordinating industrial action where there was a genuine grievance and where there has been a visit by a union official?
I know what the Minister will say. The Minister will say that that can always be repudiated by the union. The Government could have relied upon that answer if they had made reasonable the repudiation procedure. When one looks at the Bill, that is not so. The union must write to each individual member. We shall discuss later the matter of repudiation although we are all making wide-ranging speeches to get through the matter more quickly. However when one looks at the repudiation procedure, one can see that it is ridiculous. A union is required to write to every member who may have been affected and to write to every employer. Six months later, letters must be written to those who inquire. However, we shall return to that matter.
That is so not because one of the union officials or a union member has taken action but because the official had visited a group of people which included a person who had been mixed up in the dispute and who took action later; for example, he went to the paint shop and said, "All out". The union is liable unless it repudiates that. That is quite absurd.
I hope that the Government will at least look at one small point so that we have some common ground. Will the Minister look at the words, "or by any member"? Can he go that far? That is the most unreasonable part and that is why I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Rochester: In my view subsection (3A) (b) of Clause 6 goes over the top. A trade union official may be a member of a group which, unbeknown to him, decides to organise industrial action. He may not even be present at the meeting at which it is decided to take such action. Nevertheless, he may be held responsible for the acts of the group unless his union goes through the whole process of repudiation, to which we shall come in a moment.
It is worse than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said. The union could, under the clause, be held liable for the actions of a single member of the group in question. That goes much too far. The amendment seeks to delete the offending subsection and I therefore support it. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in expressing the hope that the Minister will look at this again, particularly the point that the union could be held liable for the acts of a single member of the group.
Lord Strathclyde: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, mentioned the procedure for effective repudiation, although, like him, I am aware that we shall be discussing that point in greater detail in a few moments. An understanding of the process of repudiation is vital. We cannot have exceptions to the clause brought in by noble Lords opposite. The point of the clause would be ruined. Effective repudiation is an easy hurdle to overcome. It is reasonable and right; it is not too onerous. Therefore unions always have the ability to say that they are not responsible. If they do that, they have no liability and there is no problem.

225
Perhaps I can briefly look in detail at the amendment. The new Section 15(3A)(b) is needed to ensure that a union will be potentially liable if a relevant act is done by a group of persons of which an official is a member. If this was not done, it would be impossible to know whether a union was liable for a relevant act done by such a group unless it could be established that the official had personally done the act in question.
There is a necessary limitation in these provisions so that there will be no union liability for what may be done by a group, or a member of a group, whose purposes do not include "organising or co-ordinating industrial action". So, just because a union official belongs to a group which has no such purpose—perhaps a social or sporting club—there is no danger of union liability being created by what another member of such a club might do.
The provisions of Section 15(3A)(b) proposed by Clause 6 will not prevent union officials using their influence to avoid or end industrial action organised by others. But neither will they allow a group which calls for unofficial action to have the authority which might be imparted to it by a shop steward being among its members unless the shop steward is willing to risk making his union potentially liable for what the goup, or any of its members, do by way of organising industrial action.
That is the point of the amendment. And that is why I believe it to be unnecessary. I hope that in the light of that explanation and assurance, the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am not at all reassured. The Minister has given us even more to think about before Report, and that is why I shall not move Amendment No. 24. He appears unwilling even to consider the kind of direction in which that goes; namely, that the purpose of the group has to be substantial.
We have been told many times that there cannot be exceptions, although why we are here if we cannot debate exceptions I am not sure. However, one would have expected a reasonable statute to say a group, "of which the principal purpose", or perhaps, "of which the substantial purpose". We must think about that more carefully for Report stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester said, this provision is far too extreme.
The Minister has given us something else to think about. The fantasy world of this paragraph becomes Alice in Wonderland with mention of the union sporting club. I had not thought of that. The Minister has undreamt-of resources in these matters. The union sporting club goes cycling off; the official joins it. For 90 per cent. of the time they are enjoying a mini Tour de France. Suddenly they have a beer and begin to discuss the latest stoppage at work. I see what the Minister means. They may well come within the paragraph. But this is absurd. Surely we must come back to this matter on Report. It cannot be allowed to go through without a battle. If this Chamber cannot
226
look at a paragraph of this sort and see that it is unreasonable there is not much point in debating the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert ("and for the purposes of this section the date of repudiation shall be the date on which any of them sent a written notice to the committee or official under subsection (5) (a) below.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 6 is all about repudiation. I do not want to go into the whys and wherefores of the clause as a whole. I do not agree with the clause and I share the views already expressed about it. The object of the amendment is to deal not with repudiation as an issue but with what happens when repudiation takes place.
For example, what happens when a union discovers that unofficial action is taking place? Most unions have a rule book under which the powers to repudiate are vested in the national executive council. The executive council is often made up of lay members. The general secretary has to summon the executive members to a meeting and they have to consider the issues before them and make a decision to repudiate. The date on which they repudiate can be extremely important. Therefore, the amendment sets out what that date should be. It states:
"for the purposes of this section the date of repudiation shall be the date on which any of them"—
that is, the committee—
"sent a written notice to the committee or official under subsection (5) (a) below".
That is the subsection which states:
"written notice of the repudiation must be given to the committee or official in question, without delay".
But what does "without delay" mean? There has to be an indication of exactly what that date should be. If it is the date when it is actually received, we all know that there can be postal delays and there could be arguments about the date. However, there cannot be much argument about the date when the written notice is prepared at the union's head office. That seems to be a reasonable amendment and I hope that when he replies the Minister will not say that this is an amendment that seeks to subvert the clause. It is not. The amendment seeks to tie up the position so that there is no argument as to when repudiation actually takes place. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for explaining the position. However, she is quite wrong. The amendment does exactly the opposite to what she said. I ask the Committee to consider what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter had to say about best endeavours and reasonable practice when we debated Amendment No. 18. Similar arguments obtain on this amendment. As I read the Bill, subsection (4) requires that the union shall do its best. The words are:
"as soon as reasonably practicable".

227
Surely the unions will accept that, rather than try to fix a specific date for repudiation. I cannot see how the amendment strengthens the unions' position. I believe it weakens it. Here we have a not impractical task. Surely it must be in the unions' best interests to inform all their members of repudiation of an action as soon as is practicable. That is all that the provisions require. In my view, the amendment does nothing to strengthen that.
11 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I say to the noble Baroness that in this case she is quite right. The amendment does not subvert the clause. Instead it seeks to introduce uncertainty and delay into the repudiation process. That is why the amendment is unacceptable. Superficially it might seem to involve only a minor change to make it easier for unions to comply with the law. It will not improve the positive intent of subsection (5).
The amendment seeks to extend the time period between the Act coming to the knowledge of the principle executive committee or the president or general secretary, and the effective date of repudiation by providing, in effect, that repudiation occurs when written notice of the repudiation is sent to the official or committee who called the action.
I am not aware of any statistical evidence on the average turnround time for correspondence in large organisations, but it is clear that this provision could be manipulated to add several more days to the period, during which the unofficial action could continue with impunity. As the legislation stands, the date of repudiation is the date on which any of the specified union leaders makes the decision to repudiate the call for industrial action. The legislation requires them to do this, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, as soon as reasonably practicable after coming to the knowledge of any of them. That allows a certain amount of leeway for them to investigate the circumstances of the dispute and make their decision.
The extra requirement which the amendment seeks to build in before repudiation becomes effective merely adds further delay which benefits nobody. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment and that we do not see it again at Report stage.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am rather surprised at the way in which the Minister has dismissed the intentions of this amendment. I believe that it makes things much clearer for everybody. If you have a lay executive it has to be called together. It has to be given notice and arrangements have to be made for it to come. It may take 48 hours to get it together. The executive may meet at the weekend. It then has to make its determination and the repudiation has to be issued.
I believe that it is a good idea to have a date for repudiation, that being the date on which a written notice is sent. However, the Minister does not feel disposed to accept the wording of the amendment. I shall look carefully at what he said in the Official Report tomorrow and see whether a different form of
228
wording may be a possibility at Report stage. As he suggests, I do not feel inclined to let go of the idea completely. I shall think about the matter and perhaps I may return with a different wording on Report. It seems to me that what we are suggesting on this side of the Committee is quite sensible. The Minister agrees with me that the amendment is not subverting the clause but tightening things up so that everyone knows where they stand. Nevertheless, I do not intend to press the amendment at this hour of the night. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 and insert:
("(b) the union shall do what is reasonably practicable to give notice without delay.—
(i) to every member who the union has reason to believe is taking part, or is likely to take part, in industrial action as a result of the act either by individual notification or by such other publication which it is reasonable to believe will come to the attention of such members within reasonable time, and").
The noble Lord said: We are now discussing the issue of repudiation. The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a more reasonable set of repudiation conditions. It does that by making use of a phrase which is common in the Government's legislation in saying that something should be so far as is reasonably practicable. The Minister laughs but he likes the phrase when he uses it. Perhaps he will get used to it when we use it.
Let us go quickly over the theory of repudiation to see how reasonable it is. Repudiation in its new and extended scope has to be done for every official, committee or individual of the committee of the union. It is an action that must be taken by the principal executive of the union as soon as reasonably practicable after any of the principal executive members of the union have knowledge that something has been done which may be unlawful.
Action has to be produced in two directions. A specified letter has to be sent without delay to every member who the union has reason to believe is taking part, or who might otherwise take part, in the action, and to all the employers. As has been said by my noble friend, the union must act consistently with such repudiation or it will not count. It must affect all action by anybody who subsequently turns out to be acting unlawfully on any ground. It must be done as soon as anyone in the principal executive knows that it is taking place even if he has no idea as yet that it is unlawful. It may be that its illegality is not as obvious as was at first thought to be the case. It may not be that someone is refusing to have a ballot. It may be that there is or is subsequently found to be something unlawful or wrong in the way that the ballot is conducted; or it may in the end merely be that there is some form of injunctive remedy because there has been a serious case to answer as to whether or not it might have been unlawful in the first place. If the

229
union had any reason to suppose that any of these eventualities might occur, the implications of the Bill are that it had better repudiate as soon as possible.
We leave intact the great majority of this blunderbuss. We merely suggest that in carrying out these requirements we should change or modify the necessity for a requirement in terms of an individual written notice. We allow in the terms of our amendment, in addition to the individual written notice,
"such other publication which it is reasonable to believe will come to the attention of such members".
This could mean, for example, a branch circular or a shop steward's bulletin. It might even be a notice on a locker. There must be a publication. We do not say that we can go back to that horror of horrors for the Government - the shop floor meeting. We say that there must be a publication. But to insist that it should be an individual written notice is a great deal to expect, not so much in the context of the requirements so far, but in the context of the extension of the requirements involved in this part of the Bill. They are now to be extended to all officers of the union, any committee of the union and so on. In that context we say that the degree of participation and what is required for the revoking procedure should be modified in just a small way. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I meant no discourtesy to the noble Lord by my humorous interjection when he was describing the purpose of the amendment. I just found it extraordinarily humorous that, in moving her Amendment No. 26, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, objected to the provisions in the Bill for repudiation as soon as reasonably practicable for a wide variety of reasons: calling the lay members, having weekend meetings and so on. Then in moving Amendment No. 27 the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, wanted to insert the requirement that the union shall do what is reasonably practicable. That seems to be a contradiction in terms. He then added one or two small details of who and how.
All the amendments with which we are faced tonight in Clause 6 hinge around a piece of hurdle or fencing. None of them could sustain any kind of action. Anyone could walk through them. I wonder exactly what is the real purpose of this series of amendments. Whether it is early in the afternoon or later in the evening, they are nonsensical, quite contrary and quite contradictory to all that we have talked about throughout our debates.
Lord McCarthy: They are only contrary or contradictory if the object of the exercise is to tie down the workers and the union in every conceivable way. It may be that if one put them all together and if by some moment of aberration the Minister allowed us to have them all, the result would be somewhat confusing. It may be that there would be a good many of them. But we have to keep trying and putting it in this way and that way in the hope that we might make a little pinhead of a hole. Of course we never do.
230
My noble friend Lady Turner tries to do this in one way but the Minister does not like it. I try to do it in another way, but he does not like that either. We are just trying to make it easier for those who will have to implement the provisions of the legislation. Naturally, that is not what the noble Lord wants.
Lord Strathclyde: This amendment seeks to transform a clear statement of a union's repudiation into a lottery. It will make it uncertain who has been notified and how. It will benefit neither union, nor employer nor members. Of course, that is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, wants.
The arrangements to be established by Clause 6 mean, among other things, that a union is to be free to avoid liability for an act done, authorised or endorsed by any of its lay officers or officials if it is prepared to repudiate the act or acts in question effectively. But there can be no excuse for leaving a union free to do this in a hole-in-corner way; it is an essential part of the policy behind these provisions that the union should have to make its position quite clear to all those most directly concerned. Accordingly, following repudiation by the PEC, president or general secretary, a union will in future have to do its best to give individual written notice of its repudiation to all its members who were or might have been induced, and to their employers. However, this is not an absolute duty—which we recognise might be impossible for a union ever to satisfy in this context—but the requirements are couched in terms which mean that a union which did not make a sufficient effort to satisfy the conditions would be at risk of an injunction or damages.
Amendment No. 27 seeks to replace the requirement in Section 15(5)(b) of the 1982 Act by providing that if a union gives individual notification to those members it believes are taking, or are likely to take, part in the industrial action, or puts the repudiation notice into its journal or one of its circulars that relevant members normally receive or see "within reasonable time", that would be held to satisfy the requirements of new Section 15(5)(b).
However, although the amendment provides that the union could give individual notification to all its relevant members, it does not specify what form this notification should take. It is not even necessary that the notice be written. Similarly, it only states that the journal should be seen by members "within a reasonable time". What may be a reasonable time for the compilation and publication of a union journal is unlikely to correspond to the provisions of Clause 8(4) which allows one working day between the date of repudiation and the date on which the employer may start selectively to dismiss those taking the unofficial action.
If there was a dispute about whether a union had satisfied the requirements of Section 15(5)(b), it would be for a court to determine the matter in the light of the full facts. The amendment would make it very likely that neither the employer, nor the union members, nor even the union itself would know whether it had effectively repudiated the action. That cannot be in anyone's interest.

231
The Opposition's amendment simply reveals yet again what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth wanted to say but in fact did not; namely, that noble Lords opposite want unions to be able to continue to fudge and mudge and to leave doubts as to whether a union has effectively repudiated a relevant act. Perhaps they did not hear my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls say that we should leave the Bill as it is and that we should stop looking for chinks in the armour. There cannot be any pin-holes because we must cover every position so that the union is left with no choice but to repudiate the action and therefore escape any liability. It is as simple as that.
Lord McCarthy: I hope that the Minister has finished reciting the contents of the Bill. Even if he does misrepresent my arguments, that is, at least, a 50 per cent. improvement in the situation. However, he misrepresented my arguments in two inconsistent ways. He said, first, that what is proposed is too wide and that it would help the union. He also said that it brings us back to fudge and mudge. However, he then said that it would help neither the union nor its members and that that was what I wanted.
I suppose that that is the kind of argument we can expect to receive at this time of night. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: I should remind Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 28: Page 7, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert:
(" 'Your union has learned of the call for unofficial industrial action to which this notice relates and is doing all it can to resolve the dispute in question. Meanwhile you should return to normal working. Otherwise you may be dismissed and you will then be unable to complain of unfair dismissal.' ").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I drew attention to the peremptory form in which the notice of repudiation of industrial action must be given by the union to its members under this clause. I added that at Report stage in another place the Minister of State for Employment had eventually seen the point and had said that the Government,
"are prepared to consider whether the proposed words for the union's repudiation statement are the best and most apt in all the circumstances … We shall not close our minds on that issue.—[Official Report Commons, 17/5/90; col. 1071.]
The amendment gives the Committee the opportunity to test the Minister's words. The statement, as it now stands in the Bill and as it will stand with the addition of the proposed Government amendments grouped with this amendment, is altogether too blunt, and even provocative, to facilitate the reduction in unofficial action that we all wish to see.
Those Members of the Committee who have experience of dealing with such action will agree with me that it is helpful if the union becomes involved as soon as possible, and if members know not just that
232
the union is aware of the dispute but that it is taking urgent action to resolve it. That explains the first sentence of my amendment.
Such an approach is more likely to keep the union and its members together, and so help in reaching a settlement, than if the union is obliged immediately explicitly to repudiate the actions of its members in the words of subsection (5) (a) and thus limit its freedom to manoeuvre in helping to end the dispute. Of one thing I am sure: that well-managed companies would not for a moment think of using such language when dealing with their employees. Why should a union be obliged by law to do so?
Similarly, the second sentence of the amendment, rather negatively emphasising the union's unwillingness to support its members, as the subsection proposes, tells them positively to resume normal working. The last sentence makes the effect of the members' action—that is, possible dismissal and the inability to claim that it is unfair—plain enough to them, without labouring the point already made in the first sentence that that action is unofficial.
If the subsection is allowed to remain as it is, the union will no doubt tell its members that it is repudiating and will give their action no support; but in doing so it may well be more inclined to add that it proposes to organise a ballot to make their action official, which will help no one.
There may well be flaws in the wording of my amendment; but it, or something like it, is more likely to lead to the settlement of disputes and the limitation of unofficial industrial action than the stark words proposed by the Government in the Bill. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We are discussing Amendment No. 28 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 tabled by the Government, and our Amendment No. 31. I shall take four points, if I may. It is curious that it has not proved more distasteful to more people that persons or bodies should be subjected to Government diktat about the words that they must say or write. I find that distasteful. I am surprised that the Government have found it necessary to go so far. It does riot seem to us that the evidence, such as it is, requires that action.
However, the Government are not just telling the union that it must send a notice; they are writing it for the union. After what we have heard this evening, Ministers will soon be telling trade unions what they wanted to say, but did not. There is no doubt a point in sending a notice to members to inform them of the position. In so far as the notice is informational, we have suggested that it is inadequate, which is why we tabled Amendment No. 31.
At the moment, the required confession tells members of the position in relation to unofficial industrial action. If members are to be given information on the legal position, they are entitled to be given a comprehensive view. They are therefore entitled to know that even if the union authorises or endorses the industrial action and they take part in it,

233
none will have a right to complain of unfair dismissal if the employer dismisses them all. To omit that part of the necessary propositions is to make all the statements written compulsorily rather misleading. The members may think that the action is endorsed and if they come out on strike after a ballot they cannot be dismissed, or at least that they have a right to complain of unfair dismissal. The Government should look at the misleading effect of their words.
I quite understand that the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches moved the amendment with the intention that he put to the Committee of easing all the difficulties the wording of the Bill would entail. However, I fear that we do not find the noble Lord's words an improvement. For example, to force a union to write "You should return to normal working" is—to make the point by reference—to step firmly in that direction on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, poured scorn in the report on the ports industry in 1965. It concerned making the union the policeman in industry. I could not agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on such a statement written compulsorily.
A further problem arises where, after the statement is made, in the Government's wording a district official is found not to be doing all that he can, or is not abstaining from support. The union is liable for that until it repudiates him again. Finally, what is the legal standing of these statements? The union is made to promise by law that it will give no support to such action. Is that promise made with the intention to create a legal relationship? Is it something on which the persons to whom it is made can rely? What is the union's liability?
I ask the Minister to comment, first, on the case of an official who does not do what the statement says the union is doing. In the light of the rest of the clause the union is liable until it repudiates him again. Secondly, apart from that vicarious liability, what is the legal status of the statement itself? Is it capable of being contractual or of giving rise to other liabilities? There is no legal defence in the Bill to any liability—no privilege or immunity. The Government must have thought about this and will no doubt give us an answer. That point was not traversed in the other place. In the light of that, the Committee will not be surprised to know that we cannot support this method of forcing the union to make the statements in the proposed amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: As I understand it, we are dealing with a practical situation where, as a result of unofficial advice, an unofficial strike takes place in a company. No work is done. Everything is brought to a halt because of unofficial action which the union plans to repudiate. Is it not in the interests of the union and everyone else for the matter to be put right as soon as possible? That will benefit those who are not obtaining service, the company that has come to a halt and those whose jobs are affected.
I should have thought it would be in the interests of everyone, particularly the noble Lord who is fervently in favour of trade unions, to have a clear-cut system.
234
There should be non-provocative wording to bring the employees back to work in the shortest possible time. I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, but the government wording clears the point that it might not be right for people to use such blunt language. In this instance, blunt language is necessary to put the matter clearly to bed as soon as possible and to get people back to work.
Lord Strathclyde: The Green Paper Unofficial Action and the Law proposed that when a union repudiated a call for industrial action by any of its officials, it should be required to make it clear to all relevant members that the repudiation was unequivocal. That is the purpose of having a statement which is required to be part of the written notice of repudiation which a union will have to send to relevant members when it repudiates such a call. I stress that a union will be free to put other statements or remarks on a repudiation notice. Doing so will not affect the status of the written notification as part of the effective repudiation procedure unless any such additional statement is not compatible with the repudiation itself. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Wade made.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, the Minister of State in another place promised to give consideration to the required statement as it appeared in the Bill with a view to ensuring that it was quite apt. Following that consideration, we have tabled Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 because we believe that they ensure the required statement better reflects the actual nature of the repudiation process and what it involves.
As regards Amendment No. 28, it is common ground that unions should do all they can to help to resolve disputes and to discourage their members from taking unnecessary industrial action. As an example of the Government's position on these matters, a statutory code of practice on trade union ballots and industrial action recommends the union should do whatever is practicable to resolve disputes without recourse to organising industrial action. However, the resolution of disputes must be left to the parties directly involved. It is by no means an automatic presumption that they will include a union, even where union members are taking industrial action. For example, even in such circumstances, or where a union official has called for industrial action by union members, it should be open to a union to decide that it wanted nothing whatsoever to do with a dispute or with its resolution. I hope that is not a likely scenario, but it is a possible scenario and it is one which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, would not be able to cater for.
Amendment No. 31 seeks to add words which have nothing to do with the repudiation process and have no necessary relevance to union members receiving such a notice. There is no need to require the repudiation notice to say anything about liability to non-selective dismissal while taking industrial action.
Doubtless some sort of argument could be mounted for telling union members about almost any aspect of the law—for example, that they have a remedy if their

235
union attempts to discipline them for taking part in industrial action, or that calling for industrial action to establish or maintain any kind of closed shop practice is unlawful. However, the truth is that these provisions have no more necessary relevance to a repudiation notice than those which the Opposition propose to add. Where industrial action would be unofficial by virtue of a union's repudiation of a relevant act, the written notice of its repudiation should leave members in no doubt about where their union stands. That is what the required statement helps to achieve. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the Members of the Committee opposite will accept the Government's amendments and withdraw their own.
Lord Rochester: I am naturally sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, did not feel able to support this amendment. There have been a number of amendments which he has moved today with which I have disagreed, and therefore he is quite entitled to take the view that he has. In any case, my aim here, as I hope I made plain, was to test the words of the Minister in another place. I have taken the view that the notice as it stands, and as it will stand if the Government's amendments are accepted, is altogether too stark. I believe that is the word I used.
My fear is that if the clause remains as it is, a union will do what it is told to do by statute; but it may well be more inclined in doing so to add that it proposes to organise a ballot with a view to initiating official action. I believe I said that earlier. However, it is plain from what the Minister has said that the Government believe that, with the addition of the words that they have introduced, the wording in the Bill is the most apt in the circumstances. Having put the matter to the Committee in that way, I have no alternative at this stage but to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 9, leave out ("any call") and insert ("the call (or calls)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 7 line 10, leave out ("such action") and insert ("unofficial industrial action taken in response to it (or them)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) is a party to a relevant commercial contract;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment raises a point which comes later - possibly six months later - in the process of repudiation. It relates to new subsection (6A) which requires that the union respond in the way set out to a request within six months of the purported repudiation where the person involved:
"is a party to a commercial contract whose performance has been or may be interfered with as a result of the act in question"
236
and has not previously been told of the notification of repudiation.
I had some sympathy with one remark of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who said that, in the situation with which this clause particularly deals, it was right to settle the matter as soon as possible. I have no quarrel with that. In certain ways, some of our amendments have been directed to that. The problem here is that the union cannot be sure whether its repudiation has stuck until six months have passed.
Furthermore, our amendment does not try to unseat the Government's position in that respect. That would be an exception that would make the Minister respond in a way that we all recognise. It seeks to modify the position. The Government are introducing a risk for the unions that someone of whom they have never heard, about whom they know nothing and whose commercial contract might have been interfered with will write to them. The tenses in the Bill are rather strange, but I take it that the union will receive a letter saying, "My commercial contract is one of which the performance either has been or might have been interfered with. Will you please confirm your repudiation?". That is unnecessarily burdensome.
The normal principles on which one proceeds surely in regard to the kind of liabilities that can emerge from an interference with the performance of contract are those which, broadly speaking, are similar to the tortious liability since Lumley v. Gye in 1853, where some kind of knowledge and intention is required. We have put it on the footing, possibly even less advantageous to the union, that the commercial contract must be one that the union could reasonably foresee would be substantially interfered with at the time of the act. If the union could not possibly reasonably foresee that a contract would be invoked, it seems rather onerous that a person with some other contract could act.
Let me take an example. I agree with the noble Lord that the normal case will be spontaneous action in the plant or office. We must never forget that it is not only in the plant that these actions occur. White collar workers have their problems too. But I cited the example in Truro. I do not know why, but I did. The union officials did their best to settle the grievance and the union repudiated the action as required. It consulted its lawyers—and it will have to consult its lawyers on many such matters which will create their own problems as well as expense. The matter is thought to be settled and the file put away. They congratulate themselves.
Unhappily, the General Secretary and the Truro branch secretary are both rather unwell and die three months later. Two months after that the new General Secretary gets a letter from someone in John O'Groats who says that his contract was or might have been interfered with by this action, which by now almost everyone has forgotten. Indeed, no branch minutes can be found because the Truro branch secretary's wife—many branches operate from home—cannot find them. One day short of the six months' limitation period there appear letters from parties to commercial

237
contracts from various parts of the globe—because I apprehend that this is not necessarily limited to the United Kingdom in its extent. That cannot be reasonable.
I quite understand that the Minister is tired of our amendments and we must apologise for them. But surely that kind of situation cannot be something that this legislature wants to put on the statute book. Some limitation to new subsection 6(A) must surely be allowed. There must surely be a limitation to commercial contracts which are within the foresight or apprehension of somebody at the time of the relevant act which is being repudiated. Otherwise, quite the opposite situation will arise from that which the noble Lord indicated to us.
The matter will not be settled as soon as reasonably possible. The question of whether the union has effectively repudiated will hang about for month after month waiting to find out whether anybody writes in and whether the requisite letter is sent in return. I cannot believe that that is a sensible system of law. It is certainly not one of which I know any parallel anywhere in the world.
If the Minister can give us any kind of assurance on this point, I think we should all be very happy to see some improvement made in what is a not very sensible part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I rather feel that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is making very heavy weather of all this. The provisions of the new Section 15(6A) are not necessarily the most significant or important of the changes that Clause 6 would make to Section 15 of the 1982 Act; nonetheless they are useful and logical changes. There is certainly no case for removing these provisions or modifying them in the way proposed by the amendment.
The new section recognises that there are others, besides relevant union members and the employer or employers of any such member, who have a legitimate interest in knowing whether a relevant act has been repudiated by a union. To give an example: a vehicle manufacturer might be properly interested to know about the status of industrial action being called or taken if it affected the supply of some key component—even though the inducement arose in the context of a dispute between workers and another employer.
The provisions recognise that the interest of any such party is not to be taken as "automatic" in the same way as, for example, the interest of the employer of members who are the target of the relevant act of inducement to take industrial action. That is why the new Section 15(6A) only requires a union to "confirm" its repudiation "on request" from a party to a commercial contract.
There does not seem to be any reason to limit the right to request (as proposed by these amendments) and obtain relevant information to those who can convince or persuade the union that they face "significant" problems. It is quite enough that there would be some effect in terms of interference with commercial contracts. Indeed, that is the "normal"
238
test in respect of tort. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will read carefully what I have said and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: As a listener, if I had to give a judgment on the submission that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, gave on his amendment, I should have thought that the submission proved that the words in the Bill were about right. He had to kill two people; he had to have a widow left who could not read or write; and so on. It was an amazing submission; one had to go to those extremes to prove the point. It was rather like the prim old lady who called in the police to say that the chap in the window opposite was doing things that she found rather unpleasant. When the police said, "But you cannot see in that window," she replied, "You pull up a table, put a chair on top, stand on top of that, and then you'll be able to see." It was a submission that was not in keeping with the normal clarity of the noble Lord.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry that I did not tempt the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, into the spirit of the example. I appreciate that I would never win many cases in front of him if he were on the Bench.
My submission was a quite absurd case. But it is one way of testing a Bill. One does not test a Bill with the easy cases. Anyone can do that. One tests a Bill with the absurd cases. One says, "That is ridiculous. Of course the union would not be liable there." But they would.
I put the submission the other way, as the noble Lord wishes. The Minister mentioned that the position was parallel to liability in tort. With great respect, that is wrong. Such liability in tort involves some knowledge, intention or foresight in respect of the new-(angled liabilities. Those examples are not absolute. The parallel is absolute.
Secondly, the noble Lord says that the union has only to confirm. The union can hardly do anything else. The union cannot write letters to all the traders in the world saying, "By the way, do you have a contract that might be interfered with by the action that was repudiated five months ago?" Of course the union can only confirm. Even the Government cannot go further than that.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I waited to see whether the Minister's examples were of contracts which were not reasonably foreseeable by the union as involving an interference of their performance. He gave no such examples. The example that he gave was a fair one which would fall within our amendment. Our amendment would make his contract between the vehicle manufacturer and the component manufacturers manifestly and reasonably foreseeable by the union. Indeed, if the union has to work to this structure, it might wish to write off its own bat to the component manufacture, "This is all off. We have repudiated it."
The Minister's example represents a speech for the amendment. He has not produced one example (nor were examples produced in another place) of a contract, not foreseeable by the union or known about

239
by the union, where the Government say that it would be reasonable for the union to be at risk of a letter during a period of six months which, if there were to be a mistake, could totally destroy its repudiation. The liability is absolute.
If the repudiation is destroyed, the liability to damages for a particular period of interference with the contract could be quite substantial. Yet such liability will turn upon adventitious factors which even the Government cannot defend by giving an example of a contract in the performance of which interference is not foreseeable.
I believe that the Minister's response puts an obligation on the Government to consider this matter before Report. It is most serious. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No.33:
Page 7, line 26 leave out ("forthwith") and insert ("within two weeks").
The noble Lord said: This is without doubt the tiniest amendment of the day. Since the Government have not listened to any previous submissions—we have not made so much as a pinhole—we hope that they will consider the possibility of changing the word "forthwith". I cannot imagine who this mysterious vehicle manufacturer would be, or the circumstances under which this situation would arise. However, when this imaginary vehicle manufacturer comes out of the bush and says, "Five months, three weeks, two days ago, I believe there may have been a repudiation that affects me," without looking at the record, without knowing what on earth it is about, the union has to send a letter in writing "forthwith". When I looked up the word "forthwith" in the Oxford English Dictionary it stated "immediately". I could not even find "without delay". We say, "For goodness sake, you might give them two weeks". I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment adds an arbitrary period of two weeks to the requirement to inform a customer or supplier whether the union had or had not effectively repudiated a relevant act which had affected or could well affect commercial contracts to which it was party.
It is worthwhile pointing out—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has overlooked the point—that the union is only being asked to confirm something that has already happened. The union is, of course, entitled to expect the request to be made in appropriate terms which enable the union to identify the inducement which the customer or supplier wishes to know about. It will then be a very simple matter to confirm that the inducement has been repudiated where that is the position. A court would not expect a union to do more than was practicable to satisfy the requirement to respond to the inquiry forthwith.
I see no reason why it should be preferable to fix a standard period of two weeks during which a union could ignore a relevant request, provided that it responded at the end of that period. I cannot see the argument.
Lord McCarthy: Suppose that the note comes in five months and four days after the event. The first thing that the poor old general secretary will ask is "How do we know that it was us and not the AEU or the T&G?". Unless the Government want the union to send out repudiation notices that have nothing to do with it, it should be given a few days to ring round and find out who was responsible. Perhaps nobody was responsible. The union should have some time. It should not have to respond forthwith, or immediately, but within two weeks.
Lord Strathclyde: Will the noble Lord accept that we are not talking here about repudiation but about confirmation? That is all. It has nothing to do with any other union. Surely the union will know whether it repudiated something, even it it was five months ago. It just has to confirm it. It is simple.
Lord McCarthy: What the union repudiated was a primary action, because it made everything else illegal. Here, from out of the blue, comes not the man who was involved in the primary action, not the man the union wrote to—the union keeps his letter on file—but a vehicle manufacturer who is a party to a commercial contract. The union will not know how many people who are party to commercial contracts were involved in its strike six months ago. Give the union a fortnight to find out.
Lord Strathclyde: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is getting excited about nothing. He simply has not proved his case that it is not possible for the union simply to confirm that it has repudiated something. It cannot be that difficult. The court would not expect a union to do more than was practicable to satisfy the requirement to respond to the inquiry forthwith. That is why I feel that the noble Lord is getting excited about nothing. He has not made his case.
Lord McCarthy: Is the noble Lord saying that the union should repudiate it whether or not it was involved, whether or not it was the AEU, that that does not matter and the union should just repudiate immediately? Why can it not have time to find out whether it was involved?
Lord Strathclyde: I am not sure that the noble Lord has yet grasped that we are not talking about repudiation but confirmation. All the union has to do is confirm "Yes, we repudiate it". By all means, why does the union not confirm that it repudiated action which had nothing to do with it? It does not seem to make much difference so long as the union provides the confirmation.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Suppose that the union does not believe the letter it receives. Suppose that it thinks that the company is trying it on again. Suppose that it thinks "He is a confirmation of repudiation collector. We do not believe him. He did not have a contract". Is the union allowed to check up? Is that permitted within "forthwith"? Does it have time to do that?
The Minister must take the matter seriously. Here is a union, a responsible body, which first has its hands tied as to the words it must write in its repudiation and

241
now is to write compulsory letters. Some general secretaries and national executives will not take easily to that. If the Government say that they are not even to have time to check up on the bona fides of letters they receive, that will stick in their gullets even more. If they are to have time then "forthwith" seems rather strict.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord has failed to appreciate that the amendment we are discussing does not change the position. The trade union could easily wait two weeks before it sent off its confirmation and exactly the same situation would exist as if it were sent forthwith.
Lord McCarthy: We have had this so often in the past. In effect, the noble Lord says to us that he has reason to believe that a judge would say that a fortnight is "forthwith". He cannot say that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 33, at end insert:
("(7A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make a scheme providing for payments by the Certification Officer towards expenditure incurred by independent trade unions in respect of such payments required in giving notice to members by reason of this section under section 15(5) (b) (i) of the Employment Act 1982.").
The noble Lord said: This is a small attempt to make the Minister generous. Since the 1980 Act, the Government have introduced a payment scheme for ballots. We are suggesting that that state payment scheme should be used, invoked and operated for repudiation notices.
The Committee will remember that Section 1 of the 1988 Act created the state payment scheme in respect of secret ballots under the control of a certification officer. It covered a whole range of ballots on industrial action, elections, and so on. As a result of that scheme, last year the registrar's report said that 67 unions applied for refunds for 483 ballots to a total value of £1.3 million; that is, something like 50 per cent. of the cost of those ballots, because the scheme does not cover the whole cost.
We are saying that if repudiation gets under way there will be a considerable cost to a union because that must be done in the way prescribed by the Bill. A personal letter must be sent not only to all the workers involved but also to all the employers involved. The Government are imposing the costs of that upon the union. They have accepted in the past that as regards the cost of the ballot requirements for the unions they should provide some support. It is only reasonable to suggest that a similar scheme should cover repudiation. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: It is exceptional for the costs of carrying out statutory duties to be subsidised from public funds. The position in respect of trade unions is no different and there is no good reason why the public should bear any of the costs which properly fall upon trade unions in discharging their statutory duties.
242
By contrast, the ballot funding scheme was established to encourage the voluntary extension of balloting before industrial action. The law was subsequently changed to require unions to ballot their members as a condition of securing immunity from legal proceedings but the Government have not as yet seen fit to terminate the scheme. If the Opposition is concerned about an alleged inconsistency, that can soon be removed by the abolition of the ballot funding scheme, although I must add that at present there are no plans to do so.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord must have left his brief. I cannot believe that his adviser has written that, even at ten to midnight. Are the Government really telling us that they are going to abolish the statutory ballot scheme? What an argument. That is what the Minister is threatening. He is saying that we should not ask for this or they will take away that. I cannot believe that that is a reasonable, sensible, logical answer.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord knows that that is not what I said. He argued that there was an inconsistency. There need not be an inconsistency. There is no inconsistency and there is no basic right that statutory duties should be subsidised from public funds. It is as simple as that. I made the position quite plain as regards the ballot funding scheme. The Government have no plans to abolish it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: What the Minister says is rather worrying. He says that there is a juridical difference between this clause and those clauses concerning ballots. He says that that is why no funds can be provided here but can be provided there. He says that that is a statutory duty. I do not follow that.
It is rather worrying that that has been introduced as a statutory duty. There is no statutory duty on the union to repudiate. If it chooses not to do so, it is liable. If it chooses not to hold a ballot, it is liable if the employer sues. There is no difference whatever. Both are matters of civil liability and both are conditions imposed by statute framing the civil liability or exculpation. There is no ground whatever for saying that one is a statutory duty and the other is not. If that is the Government's case, the sooner they produce the money to fulfil the work they are creating, the better.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is right. The union has a very clear choice as to what it does; the point of the statutory duty is that it gives the choice. However, as I said—though I do not believe the noble Lord heard me the first time—the ballot funding scheme was established to encourage the voluntary extension of balloting before industrial action. The law was subsequently changed to require unions to ballot their members as a condition of securing immunity from legal proceedings. Just because we did that then, does not mean that we need to do it now. It is as simple as that.
Lord McCarthy: It is not as simple as that. The Minister says: "When we introduced the scheme we gave you the money because it was voluntary". If that had been the Government's policy, they should have

243
taken the money away when the scheme was made statutory. That would have been consistent. We would have complained and said that it was typical of the Government; but at least it would have been consistent. If they had done that, we would have had no case to bring before them tonight.
For whatever reason, perhaps because they were thinking logically for five minutes, the Government did not do that. They allowed a situation to be created in which the scheme became a statutory scheme; in which there were no options and in which it was compulsory, and they gave the money to fund it. That is the present position. Now along comes another statutory scheme. Under this statutory scheme they are saying that there shall be no money. That is inconsistent and unfair.
Lord Strathclyde: There is nothing more that I can usefully add. If the noble Lord does not accept what I have said, then I am sorry. We do not see why public funds should be used to subsidise this scheme. The noble Lord has not made a case except to say that because we provide funds in one case, we should do so in another. That is not much of an argument.
Lord McCarthy: I shall not divide the Committee tonight. I shall bring this matter back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, line 33, at end insert:
("(7A) Nothing in this section shall render a trade union liable for any act done by an official at a time when he has, in accordance with the rules, ceased to be an official of the trade union.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 36 touches on a point which goes to the whole clause. This clause makes the Bill as it stands, especially in the light of the debate, legally ambiguous; indeed it is almost impossible. The reason is fundamentally the difficulty that one gets into when one tries to create vicarious liability without any reference to authority in the doctrines of agency.
The new subsection (3B) excludes the rules of the union for the purpose of the application of the preceding paragraphs (b) and (c) of the new subsection (3). Clause 6(7) repeals the definition of "official" which hitherto applied in Section 15 of the 1982 Act. In another place it was quite rightly pointed out by government ministers that the definition of official that will apply to the Bill is contained in Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. It is necessary to read a few words of that definition. It says that the word,
"'official', in relation to a trade union, means any person who is an officer of the union or of a branch or section of the union or who (not being such an officer) is a person elected or appointed in accordance with the rules of the union to be a representative of its members or some of them, including any person so elected or appointed who is an employee of the same employer as the members".
That last phrase normally makes us think of shop stewards and other lay representatives.
Therefore the new subsection (3B) excludes part of the definition and the whole clause becomes circular in its ambiguity. If a shop steward is appointed without any authority under the rules of the union and induces members to take industrial action, then the union is liable. That is clear. Theoretically—and to some extent in practice—the union can then repudiate under the new and cumbersome procedures of repudiation. However, let us suppose that the union's national executive committee, fearing that the shop steward or any other representative is to commit some further act for which the union may be liable, and—to go into the vortex of continuous repudiation—let us suppose it withdraws his credentials, to put it in the way that would apply to a number of unions, what happens if he now induces members on the shop floor to take further action? The withdrawal of credentials would, under many rule books, amount to the end of his status as an official. But we are not allowed to look at the rule book. The new subsection (3B) states:
"The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c)" of subsection (3)—
they are the paragraphs that create liability—
"apply notwithstanding anything in the rules of the union".
How does the union cause an official to cease to be an official? We submit that the amendment is necessary as a matter of pure commonsense to say that in accordance with its rules, which is in accordance with the definition in Section 30 of the 1974 Act, the official ceases to be an official when the union ends that relationship. I cannot believe that the Minister will find this an impossible amendment. I beg to move.
12 midnight
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment would enable a union to avoid potential liability for any relevant act of its officials or committees if the union happened to have a rule which provided that in relevant circumstances an official who did a certain act was no longer to be regarded as an official—the obvious implication of the amendment. What would happen if any such option was to be open to unions? It must be reasonable to assume that unions would proceed forthwith to make such rules as were necessary to restore the status quo. Certainly the union's rules might then deny shop stewards the authority to call for industrial action on behalf of the union. But would members appreciate that sort of technical difference? I venture to suggest they would not.
Paragraph 2.7 of the Green Paper explained:
"Unofficial action may be seen by a union as a useful means of putting pressure on an employer before or during negotiations".
As I said in reply to a previous amendment in regard to British Coal, the National Union of Mineworkers has rules which preclude officials below a certain level in the union hierarchy from calling for industrial action on the union's behalf. However, in reality there has often been very close involvement by lay officials in industrial action affecting particular collieries and the union has failed to intervene in any way. On that basis I do not feel that the amendment can be accepted.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I accept one point made by the Minister. An automatic cesser clause—that is, words which made the official cease to be an official in the event of certain facts which might create liability—would evade the purpose of the new section. It would be easy to amend the words of our amendment to avoid automatic forfeiture, so to speak. However, with the rest of his remarks the Minister confirmed my worst fears. It seems that once you are an official within the meaning of Section 30 of the 1974 Act you are an official for ever—for life if you want. The union can never get rid of you under its rules and that is the end of the matter.
I thought we were in Alice in Wonderland earlier in the evening but something more Kafka-like now begins to appear in the Bill. Unions when they appoint officials—however they do so, and it is done in many different ways—and especially lay officials cannot rely on their rules ever to get rid of them. I cannot believe that the Minister wants that in the Bill. I cannot believe that the courts would accept that that is in the Bill because it is so absurd that surely they would find a way round it.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government certainly do not want to look absurd in putting through this legislation and it is fair that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, should point out the inadequacy of this point. I do not like the amendment but there may be something in what the noble Lord says so on that basis I am happy to reconsider the matter without any commitment to bringing forward something on Report. However, I will examine the position carefully.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister for that minimum statement of reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No.37 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 38 or 39.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, leave out lines 5 to 7.
The noble Lord said: There is a certain difficulty about this matter at this hour. Perhaps I may explain to the Committee what I propose to do about it. Amendment No. 37 deals with that part of Clause 6 that goes into something different from the rest of the clause. Similarly, Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, which are grouped with it, and Amendment No. 59, which has been brought into the same group, deal with contiguous matters.
The place of the interlocutory injunction is what really matters at the end of Clause 6. What really matters is that, if the union is liable, can someone easily get a court order against it? The answer is yes, and unfairly so. We say that when vicarious liability is extended as has been done here, the ease with which the interlocutory injunction can be obtained and, in addition, the risks of contempt of court that the union may have to bear are much too great.
Subsection (8) gives the courts power to make wider orders than is customary. That is then applied as well
246
to contempt of court proceedings. The reason I have spoken to these amendments is that it is necessary to put on record our firm conviction about these procedures on interlocutory injunctions, in particular in relation to ex parte injunctions, and even in respect of the extensions of liability in recent years in relation to contempt of court. In order to stop anyone leaping in about enforcing the orders of the court, I say that they must be enforced. The judgments that are enforced by contempt of court powers in the High Court in England in particular are sanctioned by very severe remedies, and not merely in trade union matters, which are totally unmatched in civil jurisdictions in the courts of most countries in Europe.
These are matters on which I wish to speak. However, I put on record our concern with this area. We are particularly concerned with the extensions both of liability and of enforcement powers in Clause 6(8). I put the matter that way because there is not grouped with these amendments the subsequent Amendment No. 56. The issue which we wish to raise in connection with injunctions can perhaps be more properly raised on Thursday rather than now. It is not possible not to move these amendments because that would mean that we registered no point about them. They are not amendments about which I wish to develop a long argument at this time of night. It is a somewhat technical argument that I shall have to develop. With those remarks I move this amendment with a clear indication to the Minister that I shall ask leave to withdraw it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: As the noble Lord has said these amendments bring us into the territory of a matter which I know is one which Members of the Committee opposite regard very strongly. It may be helpful if I first address Amendments Nos. 37 and 80. These seek to remove the provisions of Section 15 and Section 1 of the 1988 Act proposed by the Bill. The effect would be to prevent the provisions of Section 15 of the 1982 Act from applying to contempt of court proceedings. I should add that Amendment No. 38 appears somewhat otiose since it proposes to remove a word that is in one of the lines that Amendment No. 37 proposes to delete.
Following our earlier debates on Clause 6, I think we can say that there is no dispute between the Government and Members of the Committee opposite that the provisions of Section 15, and of that section as it would be amended by Clause 6, create special conditions for establishing a union's vicarious liability for certain acts of its officials and committees. We may not agree on the need for such arrangements but we can surely accept their reality. Section 15 establishes potential union liability for certain tortious acts. It also applies to the determination of whether a union is to be held to have induced members to take industrial action for the purposes of Section 1 of the 1988 Employment Act.
If relevant proceedings are brought against a union, and the court issues an injunction or order against the union, the terms of that order may require the union to refrain from doing certain things, or may indeed require it to take certain steps. The question then

247
arises of how to determine whether what a union official then does, or fails to do, following the issue of the injunction or order, is to be taken to be an "act of the union" for the purposes of determining whether the union has obeyed the terms of the injunction or court order.
The Government believe that for such purposes it must be sensible to apply the provisions of Section 15 in the same way. That is precisely what Clause 6(8) proposes in the words which Amendment No. 37 seeks to remove:
"The provisions of this section apply in relation to proceedings for failure to comply with any such injunction or interdict as they apply in relation to the original proceedings".
The previsions of Paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 2, which Amendment No. 80 seeks to delete, do the same in respect of proceedings which may follow the issue of an order against a union under Section 1 of the 1988 Act. Without that provision, the courts would apply common law principles of vicarious liability, as is apparent from the judgment in the case in 1985 of Express and Star Ltd. v. NGA. But it cannot be right to allow, for example, a shop steward, whose act of calling for industrial action has led to an injunction being awarded against the union, to flaunt an order of the court which requires the union to withdraw the call without laying the union open to possible contempt of court proceedings. Yet that is exactly what might happen if these amendments were accepted.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 81 appear to be deigned to make it impossible to obtain ex parte injunctions if any such application depends on provisions in Section 15 of the 1982 Act or in Section 1 of the 1988 Act. That would certainly be their effect. But what would this mean? In a nutshell, unless a union designed to turn up at the relevant proceedings, the person making the application would find himself absolutely stymied. Unless the union happened to be willing to appear before the court, it would either have to be forced to attend or the applicant would be in a hopeless position. I can think of few more effective ways to ensure that unions were once again placed completely above the law. Indeed, the situation would be even worse in that respect than it was in the 1970s. The protection afforded against ex parte proceedings would be such as to mean, in effect, that unions were protected against penalties which a court would impose for unlawful acts as long as they chose not to turn up in court.
In summary, the new clause is neither necessary nor desirable. The Government have confidence in the courts, even if that confidence appears not always to be shared by all noble Lords opposite. Accordingly, we do not see any problem with the present law that needs the kind of remedy proposed by the new clause. I know that the noble Lord intends to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that he will read carefully what I have said.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I must make two points to the noble Lord. I was trying to avoid this until Thursday but he has a brief at which we shall have to look again in the context of Amendment No. 56.
248
First, it is really not the case that, in the light of the Express and Star Ltd. decision in the Court of Appeal—I hope that the noble Lord has the Court of Appeal decision—and without the provisions that the amendments would remove, a union would escape liability in the situation which he described. That is not the case. The Court of Appeal made the union liable. It was a contempt decision because the union had acquiesced in a manner which made it guilty of nods and winks to officials about obeying the order. That was done on common law principles. It did not need the extension in the Bill to decide that case in the way in which it was decided.
Secondly, one point on injunctions must be made. It is not a question of confidence in the courts. It is a question of confidence in procedures. Perhaps I may draw the analogy of family matters. It is not a lack of confidence in the courts that has made us reorganise our family law and send 1,000 judges of various ranks on admirable training schemes. It is a revision of the procedures. That which applies sensibly in one area of social life does not always apply sensibly somewhere else. The reality of the ex parte interlocutory injunction obtained in the absence of the trade union defendant is a scandal.
This section in the 1974 Act is supposed to have stopped it. Yet we find that in 1987 a trade union whose members were engaged in industrial action for over a fortnight was subjected to an injunction obtained by counsel from the judge at his home on a Sunday afternoon over the telephone. No doubt everyone acted as they thought proper. However, that is not a procedure which is sensible in modern industrial relations.
Moreover, if you add what happens now to what the Government will enact at the end of Clause 6, there will be far more explosive situations. There is much more to say about this matter and hope that we can traverse some of the ground in respect of injunctions with Amendment No. 56. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
12.15 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We; have given notice of our intention to oppose the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. It is perhaps wrong that the record should cease without a few brief closing remarks. What do we see when we look at Clause 6? We see a clause which is determined to make the trade union liable. It is determined to make it liable whether or not those who acted for it had any authority. It is determined to make it liable whether the persons concerned could possibly be known to the trade union either as a group or, as we saw, as individuals or members of other unions. It is a departure from every conceivable principle of law which applies to other bodies.
I shall quote what the Minister said at 10.39 p.m. this evening. He said:

249
"Unions are very special bodies".
Indeed they are. However, West End clubs are very special bodies, but we do not make them liable for someone who is neither an agent, an employee nor anyone of whom they have never heard. Of course we do not do so. We sit down and consider what are the right principles of law to apply to such a social institution. That is a line of argument which we have developed and one which I do not feel the Minister has answered. I say that because if the only answer is that
"unions are very special bodies",
we do not know where we are. We do not know what principles should apply.
The nature of the liability which is emerging from the discussion of the repudiation provisions, for example, is such that there has never been such a legal liability for unknown acts of unauthorised third parties since the Roman law liability for acts done by wandering tame animals. You could not get out of it. If you had one, then you were liable. It is rather like that situation. If you have someone who gets himself called an official, that is it; there is no possibility of avoidance of liability.
To all of that is added the ease of the injunction and the risk of contempt of court. When you add it all together, what is being done is a step-by-step march to clarity. The Minister has said many times that what he wants is clarity. However, that clarity means that the union will be liable. Once one reaches that point, I am afraid—as the noble Lord Lord Rochester and I have pointed out by way of examples—that union officials will be forced to retreat from the kind of situations in which they can at present be of most assistance to a good management which wants them to help to clear up the grievances which may exist in a company.
The union officials will have to retreat and management will feel that it cannot ask for their assistance. On the telephone they will say, "If you ask me to become involved, I have been told by the general secretary to be very careful about it. Our funds are going down; we are forced to write 3 million letters a year in repudiation to all our members at risk; and we get all these letters from people from Omsk to Vladivostok of whom we have never heard who have commercial contracts". The situation is quite absurd. If you want positive, progressive industrial relations, you do not start from that point. It is rather like not starting from York if you want to get where you are going.250
Clause 6 is the worst clause of the Bill in many ways. It is the hinge of the legislation. The vicarious liability principles of any part of the civil law are those which really make the rest of the legislation stick. Therefore, although we shall not take the further step that we would have liked to take if it had been earlier in the evening, by dividing the Committee on the clause, it would be wrong not to register our profound regret that such a clause could possibly be included in any Bill concerned with employment and industrial relations.
Lord Rochester: I too must briefly protest. Far from doing anything to improve this country's industrial relations Clause 6 may, alas, have the reverse effect from that intended by the Government in that it may provoke employees to take more rather than less industrial action. I am not sure that I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that Clause 6 is the worst clause in the Bill. I believe that that distinction may apply to Clause 8. However, I must join with the noble Lord in saying that it is a bad clause.
Lord Strathclyde: It is right that a union should be responsible when any of its officials call, or threaten to call, industrial action which will interfere with contracts. The time is right to amend the provisions of Section 15 of the 1982 Act which are relevant to union liability for such acts. It is spurious to argue that a union's liability for such acts should not be subject to statutory prohibitions. First, the basic immunity for such acts is itself a statutory creation. Secondly, unions are bodies which the law has long recognised as appropriate for special treatment, and there is no valid comparison with West End clubs of any kind. Thirdly, there is no valid analogy with other bodies or associations as their purposes are different from those of trade unions.
Unofficial action is a problem which cannot be ignored. Noble Lords opposite wish to ignore it. The clause is designed to make unions properly responsible for the acts of their officials and that is why it is appropriate and necessary. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past midnight.

  RANK ORGANISATION BID FOR MECCA LEISURE
  RANK ORGANISATION BID FOR MECCA LEISURE
  COMPANIES ACT 1989
  COMPANIES ACT 1989
  CFCs: SUBSTITUTE CHEMICALS
  CFCs: SUBSTITUTE CHEMICALS
  EFFLUENT DISPOSAL IN NORTH SEA
  EFFLUENT DISPOSAL IN NORTH SEA
  ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN EXHIBITIONS IN UK: GRANTS
  ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN EXHIBITIONS IN UK: GRANTS
  CHINA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  CHINA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  TURKEY: ADMINISTRATIVE DECREE
  TURKEY: ADMINISTRATIVE DECREE
  TURKEY: KURDISH LANGUAGE PROHIBITION
  TURKEY: KURDISH LANGUAGE PROHIBITION
  DR. ISMAIL BESIKCI: HEARINGS
  DR. ISMAIL BESIKCI: HEARINGS
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES
  PRISON POPULATION AND ACCOMMODATION
  PRISON POPULATION AND ACCOMMODATION
  PRISON OFFICERS
  PRISON OFFICERS
  PRISONERS SHARING CELLS
  PRISONERS SHARING CELLS
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  PRISONS: CERTIFIED NORMAL ACCOMMODATION
  PRISONS: CERTIFIED NORMAL ACCOMMODATION
  CYCLISTS: PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR
  CYCLISTS: PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR
  BICYCLES
  BICYCLES
  HORSE RIDERS: DEATHS AND INJURIES
  HORSE RIDERS: DEATHS AND INJURIES
  CYCLE RIDERS: DEATHS AND INJURIES
  CYCLE RIDERS: DEATHS AND INJURIES